Yes, "we really [are] searching here for NEXT STEP solutions for 'small providers or their agents' who have managed only to create a valid interchange message." Big private exchanges would be welcome to use our recommendations if they cared, of course - but we want implementable solutions for the "little" people.
In that spirit, and in line with my e-mail yesterday, perhaps we should start enumerating the various protocols that providers and payers are likely to use (for describing EDI addresses in the "directory"). I would be inclined to ignore the various legacy dial-up techniques, but others may not be so inclined. And, obviously, someone who uses expensive point-to-point leased lines doesn't need a "directory" because they're already connected to the other party! I would like to start off by suggesting simple old e-mail using S/MIME attachments. It's bi-directional, and everyone can use it today - at least as long as they're using standard e-mail clients like Outlook, Outlook Express or Netscape Communicator - but not the non-standard AOL play toy. The Microsoft-haters who use UNIX may have trouble with standard ITU X.509 certificates, so we'll have to accommodate PGP security. We should also provide for zipping (compressing) the EDI before encryption, too. This minimalist technique accommodates both the "disenfranchised" and the BIG PAYER (who can presumably automate his side of things in a lights-out fashion). I can even see the little "disenfranchised" doctor - the one who does his own electrical work - cobbling together scripts to automate his e-mail client to do this, in addition to coding up his own Javascript to build 837s and 270s (or to parse 835s and 271s)! I would add EDIINT into the mix, both the AS1 (SMTP e-mail) and AS2 (HTTP) varieties; the software is somewhat available, though probably not affordable, for the "little" person. And FTP, too, even though the "little" person might not have his own FTP server: he may have to poll drop-boxes if he insists on using FTP on the receive side. I would also leave a placeholder for ebXML Messaging Services, because that's the "Next Big Thing" - and software vendors are falling all over each other to provide practically free messaging service handlers (MSH). Have I exhausted all the possibilities? If not, people better speak up now, or else we might forget to add your favorite transport and packaging protocols to the EDI addressing specification! We definitely need the VANs and CHs to chime in here with the means and manner with which trading partners connect to them. William J. Kammerer Novannet, LLC. +1 (614) 487-0320 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher J. Feahr, OD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "David Frenkel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'WEDi/SNIP ID & Routing'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, 11 February, 2002 03:44 PM Subject: RE: Small Provider Software Vendors: Clearinghouse or mere business assoicate? Thank you for the article, David. It describes a communication system in which all the players are plugged into a sophisticated central CH-like entity called NEHEN. Presumably, it would be NEHEN's problem to maintain all the connectivity parameters for its members and I suspect that many clearinghouses will try variations on this theme... with success, but only for the benefit of their members talking to their other members. Unless I missed it in my quick read [quite possible], I did not see any principles that would allow small, unsophisticated, entities (small providers, mostly) to communicate with any other entity... in the "open" and not as part of a closed system. Question regarding scope: Are we really searching here for NEXT STEP solutions for "small providers or their agents" who have managed only to create a valid interchange message? This might be a reasonable way to define/limit scope. Solutions for the small provider are a definite need, but any scheme that we create that is flexible and cheap enough for the little guys would probably be very interesting to the Big Guys too. No matter how many people have joined NEHEN, there will always be a need to talk to people outside of NEHEN's nest. By specifically tailoring our recommendations to meet the needs of the "disenfranchised" among us, we will of necessity, be creating the most "universal" connectivity scheme. (comments always appreciated) -Chris Christopher J. Feahr, OD http://visiondatastandard.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell/Pager: 707-529-2268
