From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Sun Oct 1 14:02:35 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA10677 for ; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 14:02:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA12791 for ietf-ediint-bks; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 10:28:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail1.csx.com (proxy.csx.com [216.231.208.128]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA12787 for ; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 10:28:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.20.8.78 by mail1.csx.com (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Sun, 01 Oct 2000 13:14:01 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Received: by tjax2045exch-bk.bkup.csx.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 13:15:59 -0400 Message-ID: <231F4FCC6CFCD311B2DC00508B651738D616AC@tjax2222exch.csxt.csx.com> From: "Briley, Robert" To: "'Shan Harter'" , ietf-ediint@imc.org Subject: RE: Certificates: self-signed vs VeriSign Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 13:18:31 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: I'm not sure that it matters. We are just trying to establish a consistent set of business procedures. As Erin Williams stated earlier "it is very important to establish "good practices" for using self-signed certificates". For us, what kind of certs we use are not as important as using them properly and consistently. Rob Robert Briley Senior Network Engineer BridgePoint, Inc. robert_briley@bridge-point.com -----Original Message----- From: Shan Harter [mailto:sharter@vcommerce.com] Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2000 7:37 PM To: Briley, Robert; ietf-ediint@imc.org Subject: RE: Certificates: self-signed vs VeriSign Does it really matter if its VeriSign or by Cyclone, or IDX or ECXpert, Priminos/Templar. As long at the trust relationship between the two parties has been agreed upon? Vcommerce will probably use IDX's generated certificates (AKA Cyclone). Shan -----Original Message----- From: Briley, Robert [ mailto:Robert_Briley@Bridge-Point.com ] Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 8:20 AM To: ietf-ediint@imc.org Subject: RE: Certificates: self-signed vs VeriSign As we start to pole our trading partners on their certificate preference, the mix is about split. However, when we ask them the reason behind their preference, they don't usually have an explanation other than "well that just seemed to be the best way". Rob Robert Briley Senior Network Engineer BridgePoint, Inc. robert_briley@bridge-point.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric D. Williams [SMTP:eric@infobro.com] > Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 9:25 AM > To: ietf-ediint@imc.org > Cc: 'Totman, Philip PL' > Subject: RE: Certificates: self-signed vs VeriSign > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hello all, > I agree with Philip, however the use of self-signed will (in the short > term) be > limited to those "trading partners" who choose to operate in that > modality. I > believe most will be motivated as EDIINT moves forward to choose > externally > signed certs. I am sure the current CA's will follow these developments > closely and move quickly and deploy services in that space. > > - From that prospective, however, it is very important to establish "good > practices" for using self-signed certificates NOW, regardless of the > marketplace developments. I would be interested in some discussion on the > > parameters (read legal framework) trading partners will establish for that > type > of activity, this will at least give us some practices to draw from > concerning > self-signing and authenticity. > > Eric Williams, Pres. > Information Brokers, Inc. Phone: +1 202.889.4395 > http://www.infobro.com/ Fax: +1 202.889.4396 > mailto:eric@infobro.com > For More Info: info@infobro.com > PGP Public Key > http://new.infobro.com/KeyServ/EricDWilliams.asc > Finger Print: 1055 8AED 9783 2378 73EF 7B19 0544 A590 FF65 B789 > > > On Friday, September 29, 2000 12:55 AM, Totman, Philip PL > [SMTP:Totman.Philip.PL@bhp.com] wrote: > > Mark, > > BHP Steel Australia are about to embark on rolling out an EDIINT > compliant > > product to its major trading partners. BHP is commited to Sterling > Commerce > > solutions (Gentran) and have chosen the Internet Data Exchange (IDX) > product > > that has been sourced from Cyclone. > > > > We are planning to generate self-signed certificates and we expect that > most > > trading partners will be happy to follow suit until this type of EDI > trading > > develops and requires external certificate management. > > > > regards > > > > Philip Totman > > __________________________________________________ > > CSC Technology Services (formerly BHP IT) > > CSC > > 151 King Street, Warrawong NSW 2502 > > Ph: (02) 4275 5436 Email: totman.philip.pl@bhp.com.au > > > > > > > > > ---------- > > > From: Mark_Mueller@gillette.com[SMTP:Mark_Mueller@gillette.com] > > > Sent: Friday, 29 September 2000 7:04 > > > To: ietf-ediint@imc.org > > > Cc: Leo_Burstein@gillette.com; Robert_Mytkowicz@gillette.com > > > Subject: Certificates: self-signed vs VeriSign > > > > > > Folks, > > > > > > We're just getting started with EDIINT and we're trying to get a sense > for > > > whether other > > > companies are using self-signed certificates or certificates from a CA > such > > > as VeriSign. > > > > > > What seems to be the trend out there? Would people look askance at > > > self-signed certificates? > > > > > > Mark > > > > > > > > EOM > > > > NOTICE - This message contains information intended only for the use of > the > > addressee named above. It may also be confidential and/or privileged. > If > > you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby > notified > > that you must not disseminate, copy or take any action in reliance on > it. If > > you have received this message in error please notify > postmaster@bhp.com. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: PGP 6.5.8 > > iQA/AwUBOdSYKAVEpZD/ZbeJEQJCBQCgrpdp65PmqxAlrZeFeWqK+jy4SEcAn1ev > 4P3ZmJjGP9piZRpZnUXsOro3 > =BrJV > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Mon Oct 2 11:25:52 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA09308 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 11:25:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA15725 for ietf-ediint-bks; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 07:21:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gateway.reims.net (firewall-user@gateway.reims.net [194.75.234.2]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA15721 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 07:21:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by gateway.reims.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA07947 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 15:31:03 +0100 (BST) Received: from smtpgate.saa-cons.co.uk(10.10.10.182) by gateway.reims.net via smap (3.2) id xma007927; Mon, 2 Oct 00 15:30:51 +0100 Received: from olympus.saa-cons.co.uk (olympus.saa-cons.co.uk [10.1.11.12]) by smtpgate.saa-cons.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA17477 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 15:34:40 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from djr@saa-cons.co.uk) Received: from localhost (djr@localhost) by olympus.saa-cons.co.uk (AIX4.3/8.9.3/8.7) with SMTP id PAA37048 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 15:23:00 +0100 Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 15:23:00 +0100 (BST) From: Dave Roberts To: ietf-ediint@imc.org Subject: RE: Certificates: self-signed vs VeriSign In-Reply-To: <231F4FCC6CFCD311B2DC00508B651738D616AC@tjax2222exch.csxt.csx.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Sometimes this issue is dictated by the security requirements between Trading Partners, and the infrastructure between them. Obviously certificates that are signed by a globally recognised CA are safe to be transmitted across the Internet to your TP, providing that they have a good copy of the CA's own certificate. If you have a means of easily transferring the certificates offline, so that they cannot be intercepted (or you can verbally verify the certificate fingerprint), then the use of self-signed certificates, or certificates signed by an internal CA would be suitable. All this depends on the level of security that you are trying to implement. As with most things, there is no single best option. - Dave. -- Dave Roberts Servicing the Online Organisation Principal Technical Consultant http://www.saaconsultants.com/ SAA Consultants Ltd Tel: +44 1752 606000 Plymouth, UK. Fax: +44 1752 606838 From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Tue Oct 3 07:07:50 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id HAA05726 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 07:07:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA09801 for ietf-ediint-bks; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 03:12:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.47]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA09796 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 03:12:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vaio ([12.74.8.111]) by mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with SMTP id <20001003101531.DFPU23816.mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net@vaio>; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 10:15:31 +0000 From: "Rik Drummond" To: Cc: "Beth Morrow" Subject: We will be running and interoperability test on AS2 with about 10 vendors.... Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 05:10:47 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ... if you wish to participate please contact Beth@drummondgroup.com best regards, rik From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Wed Oct 4 17:38:42 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id RAA02384 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 17:38:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA00177 for ietf-ediint-bks; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 13:37:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailman.8760.com (portal.8760.com [209.149.125.2]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA00172 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 13:37:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mailman.8760.com from localhost (router,SLMail V3.2); Wed, 04 Oct 2000 15:41:20 -0500 Received: from gamma [192.168.21.133] by mailman.8760.com [192.168.21.90] (SLmail 3.2.3113) with SMTP id 678FED5D963911D4BB060060974E38DD for plus 2 more; Wed, 04 Oct 2000 15:41:19 -0500 Reply-To: From: "Dick Brooks" To: "Rik Drummond" , Cc: "Beth Morrow" Subject: RE: We will be running and interoperability test on AS2 with about 10 vendors.... Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 15:37:42 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-SLUIDL: D4B1AB7D-948811D4-BB060060-974E38DD Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Rik, Will this testing include both PGP and S/MIME V3.0? Dick Brooks Group 8760 110 12th Street North Birmingham, AL 35203 dick@8760.com 205-250-8053 Fax: 205-250-8057 http://www.8760.com/ InsideAgent - Empowering e-commerce solutions > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org > [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org]On Behalf Of Rik Drummond > Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 5:11 AM > To: ietf-ediint@imc.org > Cc: Beth Morrow > Subject: We will be running and interoperability test on AS2 with about > 10 vendors.... > > > ... if you wish to participate please contact Beth@drummondgroup.com > > > best regards, rik From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Wed Oct 4 17:50:08 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id RAA02696 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 17:50:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA00995 for ietf-ediint-bks; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 14:03:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.47]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA00990 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 14:03:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vaio ([12.74.10.132]) by mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with SMTP id <20001004210634.ZDOE23816.mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net@vaio>; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 21:06:34 +0000 From: "Rik Drummond" To: , Cc: "Beth Morrow" Subject: RE: We will be running and interoperability test on AS2 with about 10 vendors.... Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 16:01:51 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit don't know yet... you should listen in until we figure it out... best regards, rik -----Original Message----- From: Dick Brooks [mailto:dick@8760.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 3:38 PM To: Rik Drummond; ietf-ediint@imc.org Cc: Beth Morrow Subject: RE: We will be running and interoperability test on AS2 with about 10 vendors.... Rik, Will this testing include both PGP and S/MIME V3.0? Dick Brooks Group 8760 110 12th Street North Birmingham, AL 35203 dick@8760.com 205-250-8053 Fax: 205-250-8057 http://www.8760.com/ InsideAgent - Empowering e-commerce solutions > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org > [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org]On Behalf Of Rik Drummond > Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 5:11 AM > To: ietf-ediint@imc.org > Cc: Beth Morrow > Subject: We will be running and interoperability test on AS2 with about > 10 vendors.... > > > ... if you wish to participate please contact Beth@drummondgroup.com > > > best regards, rik From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Fri Oct 6 17:27:53 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id RAA13283 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 17:27:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA15360 for ietf-ediint-bks; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 13:30:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sm3.texas.rr.com (sm3.texas.rr.com [24.93.35.210]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA15353 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 13:29:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vaio.drummondgroup.com (cs1600-242.austin.rr.com [24.160.0.242]) by sm3.texas.rr.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e96KY3N26715; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 15:34:08 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001006102610.00b2a640@pop-server.austin.rr.com> X-Sender: (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 15:38:40 -0500 To: , "Rik Drummond" , From: Beth Morrow Subject: RE: We will be running and interoperability test on AS2 with about 10 vendors.... In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: We think it will be only S/MIME V3.0 at this point. But we foresee doing PGP in the future. Beth Morrow Drummond Group Inc. 512-335-5606 At 03:37 PM 10/4/00 -0500, Dick Brooks wrote: >Rik, > >Will this testing include both PGP and S/MIME V3.0? > >Dick Brooks >Group 8760 >110 12th Street North >Birmingham, AL 35203 >dick@8760.com >205-250-8053 >Fax: 205-250-8057 >http://www.8760.com/ > >InsideAgent - Empowering e-commerce solutions > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org > > [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org]On Behalf Of Rik Drummond > > Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 5:11 AM > > To: ietf-ediint@imc.org > > Cc: Beth Morrow > > Subject: We will be running and interoperability test on AS2 with about > > 10 vendors.... > > > > > > ... if you wish to participate please contact Beth@drummondgroup.com > > > > > > best regards, rik From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Sun Oct 8 21:51:33 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id VAA13893 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 21:51:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA12614 for ietf-ediint-bks; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 17:53:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from www.sinet.net.cn (szptt103-190.szptt.net.cn [202.103.190.3] (may be forged)) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA12609 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 17:53:26 -0700 (PDT) From: rsb@docsj.de Received: from pavilion ([204.32.5.98]) by www.sinet.net.cn (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with SMTP id AAA16348; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 00:52:21 GMT Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 00:52:21 GMT Message-Id: <200010090052.AAA16348@www.sinet.net.cn> To: rsb@docsj.de Subject: At last, HERBAL V the all natural alternative! Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Herbal V: An Incredible All-Natural Healthy Alternative Herbal V is the All Natural Approach to Male Virility, Vitality and Pleasure. Available N o w ! Welcome to the New Sexual Revolution. It's the all natural male potency and pleasure pill that men everywhere are buzzing about. Herbal V is safe, natural and specifically formulated to help support male sexual function and pleasure. You just take two easy-to-swallow tablets one hour before sex. And there's more great news - you can get Herbal V for less than $1 a pill. Amazing word of mouth praise on Herbal V has been spreading like wildfire-already over 1,500,000 men have chosen Herbal V. Since it is 100% natural you will never have to worry about safety. Try doctor-recommended Herbal V today and have the greatest night of your life! Herbal V... Bringing Back the Magic! 1,585,000 men can't be wrong. To date over 1 million men have tried the super supplement Herbal V. Here is why: No Doctor Visit Required Available Over the Counter Not a Drug 100% Natural Safe, No Worries Highest Quality Pharmaceutical-Grade Pure Nutriceuticals Guaranteed Potency & Purity Be a Real Man Again! Questions and Answers What is Herbal V? Herbal V is a proprietary blend that was specifically developed as a safe alternative for men who prefer an all-natural approach to address impotence and boost sexual performance. This amazing formula first became popular with Hollywood insiders and the wealthy elite. They were maximizing their sex lives, long before it was available to the general public. How does Herbal V work? Developed by a team whose goal was to create the perfect all-natural aphrodisiac. Herbal V is the result of that remarkable effort. The Herbal V formula contains a precise blend of cutting edge pro-sexual nutrients from around the world that provide nutritional support, making it possible for a man to have a pleasurable sexual experience. What can Herbal V do for me? Herbal V helps support male sexual function and pleasure in a safe and natural manner. Simply put, it can make your sex life incredible. Is Herbal V Safe? One of the great things about Herbal V is that it is not a drug. It is an incredible herbal dietary supplement that provides nutritional support for male sexual function and pleasure. One of the most comforting features of Herbal V is that you never have to worry about safety. Herbal V: Safe - Natural - Exciting Many have speculated that because Herbal V is so popular with men, it must contain prescription drugs or chemical components. Herbal V does not contain any elements or traces of any prescription drug. Herbal V is made using the world's most technologically advanced state-of-the-art cold processing equipment to ensure maximum purity. Herbal V has been independently analyzed by the nation's premier testing facility to ensure purity, quality and to end the rumors that, because it is so popular, it must somehow be chemical. It is not. Herbal V is natural - just as it says on the label. Herbal V is simply fantastic! Herbal V: Ingredients Yohimbe, saw palmetto, avena sativa, androstenedione, guarana, taurine, siberian ginseng, tribulus terrestris. Tribulus Terrestis is certified to enhanced testosterone levels by increasing Luteinzing hormone (LH) levels. Androstenedione which is a precursor to testosterone unlocks bound testosterone and makes it biologically active again quickly. This means a dramatic surge in desire. Avena Sativa Stimulates the neurotransmitter pleasure centers to maximum capacity. This greatly intensifies pleasure. Just listen to what Herbal V has done for the sex lives of people like you! “On a scale of 1 to 10, it's a 15. Electrifying. It's like a wonder pill!” — Justin Q B., New Haven, Texas “I haven't had sexual relations in 11 years. Then with Herbal V it was... wow! It works again!” — Sid R., Lakeland, Florida “I had sex four times in one night. It made me feel like a 19-year-old again.” — Chip S, Beech Mountain, North Carolina “Herbal V has turned my husband into a Sexual Superman! I like the fact that it's all natural and has no side effects. It's bringing back the good old days.” — Jennifer B, Beverly Hills, California The above testimonials are from product literature, and we have not independently verified them. However, the following testimonial is from a "senior" gentleman who has purchased his second bottle of Herbal V. When we heard his words with our own ears, we asked his permission to print them here. “Man! I'm wild as I can be! I feel like I'm 25 years old again! I'm not believing this!” — Mr. Murphy, age 64, Lampart, IL. Risk Free: Double Your Money Back Guarantee If Herbal V does not give the desired results as stated above, simply return the unused portion for a double-your money back refund. No questions asked ! Order Now: Safe, Fast, Secure, Private Herbal V with its DOUBLE YOUR MONEY BACK GUARANTEE is available only through this special promotional offer. Herbal V arrives in plain packaging for your privacy. Any and all information is kept strictly confidential. Payment Methods You may FAX or Postal Mail Checks, MasterCard, Visa, & American Express.payments. Money Orders are accepted only by Postal Mail. Each bottle of Herbal V contains 30 tablets, approximately a 1 month supply. Step 1: Place a check by your desired quanity. ______ 1 Bottle of Herbal V $24 ______ 2 Bottles of Herbal V $44 ______ 3 Bottles of Herbal V $59 Please add $6 shipping and handling for any size order. [ Total cost including shipping & handling, 1 bottle=$30, 2 bottles=$50, 3 bottles=$65 ] International Orders Please add $16 shipping and handling for any size order. [ Total cost including shipping & handling, 1 bottle=$40, 2 bottles=$60, 3 bottles=$75 ] Step 2: Place a check by your desired payment method and complete fields if necessary. _____Check or CHECK-BY-FAX [details below] _____Money Order _____American Express Account Number__________________ Exp____/____ _____Visa Account Number__________________ Exp____/____ _____MasterCard Account Number__________________ Exp____/____ Please make your check or money order payable to "Lion Sciences National". Step 3: Please complete and print the following fields clearly. Name ___________________________________________________ Address _________________________________________________ City ____________________________________________________ State ___________________________________________________ Zip _____________________________________________________ E-mail __________________________________________________ Signature _________________________________________________ [ required for check and credit card orders] Toll Free FAX Order Line: 1-800-940-6590 If faxing in your order, please state whether you require a fax, email, or no confirmation at all. Allow up to one day for confirmation, if requested. FAX orders are processed immediately. Or, print & mail to: LSN 3502 N. Powerline Rd. #525 Pompano Beach, FL 33069 ______________________________________________________ *CHECK BY FAX ORDERS: Complete the check as normal. Tape the check in the area below. Below the check, clearly write the check number, all numbers at the bottom of the check, & your name. Tape the check below and fax the check to the toll free FAX number above. Void the check. Our merchant will electronically debit your account for the amount of the check; your reference number for this transaction will be your check number. Nothing could be safer & easier ! TAPE CHECK BELOW _____________________________________________________________ This is a one time mailing: Removal is automatic and no further contact is necessary. Please Note: Herbal V is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. As individuals differ, so will results. Herbal V helps provide herbal and nutritional support for male sexual performance. The FDA has not evaluated these statements. For details about our double your money back guarantee, please write to the above address, attention consumer affairs department; enclose a self addressed stamped envelope for this and any requested contact information. Thank You. From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Sun Oct 8 23:39:23 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id XAA15683 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 23:39:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA15988 for ietf-ediint-bks; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 19:54:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail1.mia.bellsouth.net (mail1.mia.bellsouth.net [205.152.144.13]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA15984 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 19:54:51 -0700 (PDT) From: bubblehead32@hotmail.com Received: from www.goldendeckcasino.com (adsl-61-143-206.mia.bellsouth.net [208.61.143.206]) by mail1.mia.bellsouth.net (3.3.5alt/0.75.2) with SMTP id WAA14138; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 22:58:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200010090258.WAA14138@mail1.mia.bellsouth.net> To: <> Subject: WOW!!! Highest Payouts Around!!!!!!!! Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 22:41:00 -0400 X-Sender: bubblehead32@hotmail.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Its just like being there. Go to www.goldendeckcasino.com/goldendeckcasino/links/2769.html. If you would like to be removed from these mailings in the future please mailto:bubblehead32@hotmail.com?subject=remove From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Thu Oct 26 00:43:34 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id AAA13673 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 00:43:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA24493 for ietf-ediint-bks; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 20:58:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gnetservices.com (gary.vnet.net [166.82.199.116]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA24487 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 20:58:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 20:58:32 -0700 (PDT) From: gary@gnetservices.com Message-Id: <200010260358.UAA24487@ns.secondary.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=200010252328=" To: ietf-ediint@imc.org X-Mailer: 51883080.7AB27F4C.3a379d2dda9b5e34889937d7d67c6924 Subject: Imagine how many people in your downline would like to use this service to boost their online recruiting efforts. Now multiply that number by $10.00! Organization: GNet Services Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: --=200010252328= Content-Type: text/plain;charset=US-ASCII Welcome to the most effective prospecting site on the Internet today! I began using your website just 75 days ago and it now has become my number one source of qualified prospects for my business! So far this month I have enrolled 19 new Marketing Executives into my program with my HomeBusiness.to website and it's only the 19th of the month. I have never enrolled one per day in my entire career in this business before now! Jim Simpson ***************************************************************************************** You can now use our site to promote either an e-commerce opportunity or a diet and nutrition opportunity. When signing up, simply choose the version you would like to use. To make our service even better, you can now earn an incredible $10.00 PER MONTH for each person you refer to our site! That's right, every month you can get paid $10.00 for every person using our service that you sent to us. Imagine how many people in your downline would like to use this service to boost their online recruiting efforts. Now multiply that number by $10.00! Our basic subscription service is just $19.95, that means with just two active referrals your service now becomes virtually free! With three referrals, you actually make money each month. How many magazines and newspapers can offer that? Signup Now http://www.homebusiness.to/GNetSvcs ACT TODAY!!! --=200010252328=-- From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Sat Oct 28 05:38:18 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id FAA27920 for ; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 05:38:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA22378 for ietf-ediint-bks; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 01:45:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from del2.vsnl.net.in (del2.vsnl.net.in [202.54.15.30]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA22364 for ; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 01:45:04 -0700 (PDT) From: gary@gnetservices.com Received: from abinfosys01.abinfosys (d4105.pppdel.vsnl.net.in [203.197.206.220]) by del2.vsnl.net.in (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id OAA17403 for ; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 14:24:06 -0500 (GMT) Received: from abinfosys01.abinfosys (ABINFOSYS01 [192.168.1.1]) by abinfosys01.abinfosys with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.1960.3) id VRK6SB0W; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 14:13:07 +0530 Received: by abinfosys01.abinfosys (Microsoft Exchange Connector for POP3 Mailboxes 4.50.2113) with SMTP (Global POP3 Download) id MSG10282000-135111-1066.MMD@abinfosys; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 13:51:11 +0530 Received: from chaorg.com (chaorg.com [216.121.32.105]) by del2.vsnl.net.in (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id KAA28003 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 10:22:47 -0500 (GMT) Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by chaorg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA28714 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 21:48:24 -0700 Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA24493 for ietf-ediint-bks; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 20:58:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gnetservices.com (gary.vnet.net [166.82.199.116]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA24487 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 20:58:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 20:58:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200010260358.UAA24487@ns.secondary.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-ediint@imc.org X-Mailer: 51883080.7AB27F4C.3a379d2dda9b5e34889937d7d67c6924 Subject: Imagine how many people in your downline would like to use this service to boost their online recruiting efforts. Now multiply that number by $10.00! Organization: GNet Services List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=200010252328=" X-UIDL: 5c64e5ef08750b4023e5f5fb3674694d Status: U Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: --=200010252328= Content-Type: text/plain;charset=US-ASCII Welcome to the most effective prospecting site on the Internet today! I began using your website just 75 days ago and it now has become my number one source of qualified prospects for my business! So far this month I have enrolled 19 new Marketing Executives into my program with my HomeBusiness.to website and it's only the 19th of the month. I have never enrolled one per day in my entire career in this business before now! Jim Simpson ***************************************************************************************** You can now use our site to promote either an e-commerce opportunity or a diet and nutrition opportunity. When signing up, simply choose the version you would like to use. To make our service even better, you can now earn an incredible $10.00 PER MONTH for each person you refer to our site! That's right, every month you can get paid $10.00 for every person using our service that you sent to us. Imagine how many people in your downline would like to use this service to boost their online recruiting efforts. Now multiply that number by $10.00! Our basic subscription service is just $19.95, that means with just two active referrals your service now becomes virtually free! With three referrals, you actually make money each month. How many magazines and newspapers can offer that? Signup Now http://www.homebusiness.to/GNetSvcs ACT TODAY!!! --=200010252328=-- From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Tue Oct 31 12:02:36 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA17355 for ; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 12:02:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA06380 for ietf-ediint-bks; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 07:35:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from aurora.regenstrief.org (aurora.regenstrief.org [134.68.31.122]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA06367 for ; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 07:35:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from aurora.regenstrief.org (schadow_g.regenstrief.org [134.68.31.121]) by aurora.regenstrief.org (8.11.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e9VFf5Z50282; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 10:41:09 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from gunther@aurora.regenstrief.org) Message-ID: <39FEE816.AE3E1EAB@aurora.regenstrief.org> Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 10:41:10 -0500 From: Gunther Schadow Organization: Regenstrief Institute X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-ediint@imc.org, Rik Drummond , Kepa Zubeldia , CLEM Subject: Status and Future of EDIINT Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------14000A3CE385A4B2BB0691E7" Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------14000A3CE385A4B2BB0691E7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear EDIINTers, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Some sectors of the U.S. government have a need for EDI security that is technically best serverd by EDIINT at this time. In particular, the HHS department might possibly adopt EDIINT. This kind of adoption would mean a very important growth potential for all vendors who are now supplying EDIINT solutions. An HHS adoption would basically open up the entire U.S. healthcare market to the EDIINT vendors, including HCFA/MEDICARE and other governmental agencies, not to mention good contracting and consulting oportunities. There are lots of incentives. However, in order for this to happen, certain issues should be dealt with. #1 EDIINT WG appears dead or slow working, we need new livelyhood and faster progress and document turn-around to RFC status. #2 The U.S. government mandates its agencies to primarily adopt ANSI standards. HL7, an ANSI SDO, could be willing to process and release the EDIINT specifications under HL7 cover, so that they may become ANSI standards. This requires willingness and focused cooperation on the part of EDIINT. Timeframe would be relatively short, about 6 months. #3 Some minor technical issues need to be addressed, mainly the official blessing and successful registration of media type for healthcare related EDI standards (HL7, NCPDP) and potentially another AS applying EDIINT structures to miscellaneous documents. DETAILS There is great oportunity for strong growth of EDIINT specifications and products in the healthcare marketplace. The reason is that there are certain security standards to be adopted by the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services to secure EDI transactions using X12, HL7, and NCPDP/EDIFACT EDI message standards. To make a long story short, EDIINT looks like a perfect candidate for the HHS Secretary to choose. EDIINT's outstanding advantage before all other similar message security standards is it's strong support of various non-repudiation services not available with, say, SSL or plain PKCS#7 (aka "S/MIME"). The other great advantage is that EDIINT specs are interoperability tested with several major vendors ready to sell/deploy products. EDIINT is not too new, and relatively mature, which is important for HHS too, since the government can't embark on a trial and error endeavor with bleeding edge hyped technology. So, the future of EDIINT is bright, ... right? There are certain mjor issues, however, that stand in the way, and this message is both an inquiry on the status of EDIINT and a plea to get these issues resolved ASAP. ISSUE #1 EDIINT IS DEAD? EDIINT appears dead -- several of its major drafts have expired by now, supposedly waiting in the queue of the heavily overloaded RFC editor. Last calls have long passed, and yet nothing ever happened in terms of RFC releases. While this may not be the EDIINT WG's fault in particular, it sends a bad "vital sign". The fact that the EDIINT-HL7 draft has expired is my fault, but frankly with everything moving so slowly, and lack of overall interest in HL7 matters by this group, the incentives for cycling through this 6-month draft expiration are not very high. I was hoping that the next draft could be one that cites all RFCs and that it could move up to last call soon... Whoever has contacts into the IETF/IESG policy might want to suggest that the backlog at the RFC editor is a serious problem deserving attention. BTW: I am very worried that the working group constituency and its leadership have turn to ebXML without having brought the EDIINT effort to a conclusion. I reckon that the slowness of EDIINT progress stands in reciprocal relation with the feverish ebXML work. However, the business case for ebXML is hard to see if you take away all the hype. Particularly when it comes down to strong government bet on a specification the more bleeding edge thing has disadvantages. You want to have one thing in place that works now. That is EDIINT. We should finish that first and worry about the omni-XMLification later. ISSUE #2 ANSI ACCREDITATION EDIINT is not an ANSI standard and IETF not an ANSI SDO. The government mandates that governmental agencies look first at adopting ANSI standards. There is one ANSI SDO that has certain security related standards and that is well positioned to push those politically. Those specification, however, haven't been widely implemented and may be too peculiar to healthcare to be cost- effectively deployed. Now, there may or may not be reasons why IETF has never become an ANSI SDO, about which we could talk off line (being an ANSI SDO doesn't mean serious changes in policies and procedures for IETF AFAIK ... yes IETF is international, but I think that being an ISO SDO is more encumbering than simply operating under ANSI ... there is nothing in ANSI statutes that would limit strong international involvement.) For EDIINT specifications, however, HL7 could help out w/r/t the ANSI approval. We could cast all EDIINT specifications under HL7 cover, go through a formal ballot procedure, and get these specs declared as ANSI standards. HL7 has a certain momentum in getting this done, and I do not expect our balloting to bring significant turmoil and changes to the specs. If there is interest, I suggest that one or a few people out of the EDIINT group should get in contact with HL7, which I am glad to catalyze. The easiest way to get through the HL7-ANSI process would be if it were managed by EDIINT people. The HL7 executive branch would assist and guide through the process, the major editorial work, however, would be born by the people that EDIINT delegates to working with HL7. Time estimate, once the process is established, about 6 months. While HL7 is a healthcare information standard, the ANSI approval gained through HL7 is in no way "encumbered" by terms that would limit applicability to healthcare. So, the EDIINT's ANSI approval gained through HL7 would be worth in other U.S. governmental adoptions, of which there is plenty of oportunity at this time. ISSUE #3 TECHNICAL THINGS There are certain technical things that would need quick resolution. For example, we would need to get new application/EDI-* MIME types approved rather quickly. I have submitted a request to the MIME type registry for application/EDI-HL7 several months ago, but I never heard back and my request hasn't been acted on. This again may be a symptom of overload at the IETF/IANA and somebody should do something about this. Anyway, we would need application/EDI-NCPDP and application/EDI-HL7 at least. Then we might need an AS for a simple file based documents (simple and stupid). Basically this would use the same EDIINT mechanism, but the payload could be anything, plain text, XML, proprietory formats. The use case is, e.g., electronic patient consents, etc. CONCLUSION I am being a little forward-looking here because I want to get the attention of the existing vendors asking them to help and suggesting that they would have a good ROI from this effort in terms of growth potential. Note that there is a window of oportunity open now, that requires quick action and a certain dedication. No promise can be made but chances are quite good if enough people work on this. This project would not stand without a certain political infrastructure helping its success, but the main thing we need is committment of the EDIINT group. regards -Gunther --------------14000A3CE385A4B2BB0691E7 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="gunther.vcf" Content-Description: Card for Gunther Schadow Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="gunther.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit begin:vcard n:Schadow;Gunther tel;fax:+1 317 630 6962 tel;home:+1 317 816 0516 tel;work:+1 317 630 7960 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:http://aurora.rg.iupui.edu org:Regenstrief Institute for Health Care adr:;;1050 Wishard Blvd;Indianapolis;Indiana;46202;USA version:2.1 email;internet:gschadow@regenstrief.org title:M.D., Medical Information Scientist note;quoted-printable:Al oppinions expressed in this message are my own and do =0D=0Anot necessarily represent those of the Regenstrief Institute. fn:Gunther Schadow end:vcard --------------14000A3CE385A4B2BB0691E7-- From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Tue Oct 31 12:18:39 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA23498 for ; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 12:18:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA11350 for ietf-ediint-bks; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 08:28:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtiwmhc26.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc26.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.51]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA11345 for ; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 08:28:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from vaio ([12.74.40.120]) by mtiwmhc26.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with SMTP id <20001031163424.IHQJ16880.mtiwmhc26.worldnet.att.net@vaio>; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 16:34:24 +0000 From: "Rik Drummond" To: "Gunther Schadow" , , "Kepa Zubeldia" , "CLEM" Cc: "Beth Morrow" Subject: RE: Status and Future of EDIINT Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 10:34:43 -0600 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <39FEE816.AE3E1EAB@aurora.regenstrief.org> Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit well it is not dead. the spec is in the loop for rfc approval... and we now have 12 vendors supporting as1 and 9 supporting as2. these are all interoperable. if we don't get something back from the ietf shortly it might be wise to go the ansi route... rik -----Original Message----- From: Gunther Schadow [mailto:gunther@aurora.regenstrief.org] Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 9:41 AM To: ietf-ediint@imc.org; Rik Drummond; Kepa Zubeldia; CLEM Subject: Status and Future of EDIINT Dear EDIINTers, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Some sectors of the U.S. government have a need for EDI security that is technically best serverd by EDIINT at this time. In particular, the HHS department might possibly adopt EDIINT. This kind of adoption would mean a very important growth potential for all vendors who are now supplying EDIINT solutions. An HHS adoption would basically open up the entire U.S. healthcare market to the EDIINT vendors, including HCFA/MEDICARE and other governmental agencies, not to mention good contracting and consulting oportunities. There are lots of incentives. However, in order for this to happen, certain issues should be dealt with. #1 EDIINT WG appears dead or slow working, we need new livelyhood and faster progress and document turn-around to RFC status. #2 The U.S. government mandates its agencies to primarily adopt ANSI standards. HL7, an ANSI SDO, could be willing to process and release the EDIINT specifications under HL7 cover, so that they may become ANSI standards. This requires willingness and focused cooperation on the part of EDIINT. Timeframe would be relatively short, about 6 months. #3 Some minor technical issues need to be addressed, mainly the official blessing and successful registration of media type for healthcare related EDI standards (HL7, NCPDP) and potentially another AS applying EDIINT structures to miscellaneous documents. DETAILS There is great oportunity for strong growth of EDIINT specifications and products in the healthcare marketplace. The reason is that there are certain security standards to be adopted by the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services to secure EDI transactions using X12, HL7, and NCPDP/EDIFACT EDI message standards. To make a long story short, EDIINT looks like a perfect candidate for the HHS Secretary to choose. EDIINT's outstanding advantage before all other similar message security standards is it's strong support of various non-repudiation services not available with, say, SSL or plain PKCS#7 (aka "S/MIME"). The other great advantage is that EDIINT specs are interoperability tested with several major vendors ready to sell/deploy products. EDIINT is not too new, and relatively mature, which is important for HHS too, since the government can't embark on a trial and error endeavor with bleeding edge hyped technology. So, the future of EDIINT is bright, ... right? There are certain mjor issues, however, that stand in the way, and this message is both an inquiry on the status of EDIINT and a plea to get these issues resolved ASAP. ISSUE #1 EDIINT IS DEAD? EDIINT appears dead -- several of its major drafts have expired by now, supposedly waiting in the queue of the heavily overloaded RFC editor. Last calls have long passed, and yet nothing ever happened in terms of RFC releases. While this may not be the EDIINT WG's fault in particular, it sends a bad "vital sign". The fact that the EDIINT-HL7 draft has expired is my fault, but frankly with everything moving so slowly, and lack of overall interest in HL7 matters by this group, the incentives for cycling through this 6-month draft expiration are not very high. I was hoping that the next draft could be one that cites all RFCs and that it could move up to last call soon... Whoever has contacts into the IETF/IESG policy might want to suggest that the backlog at the RFC editor is a serious problem deserving attention. BTW: I am very worried that the working group constituency and its leadership have turn to ebXML without having brought the EDIINT effort to a conclusion. I reckon that the slowness of EDIINT progress stands in reciprocal relation with the feverish ebXML work. However, the business case for ebXML is hard to see if you take away all the hype. Particularly when it comes down to strong government bet on a specification the more bleeding edge thing has disadvantages. You want to have one thing in place that works now. That is EDIINT. We should finish that first and worry about the omni-XMLification later. ISSUE #2 ANSI ACCREDITATION EDIINT is not an ANSI standard and IETF not an ANSI SDO. The government mandates that governmental agencies look first at adopting ANSI standards. There is one ANSI SDO that has certain security related standards and that is well positioned to push those politically. Those specification, however, haven't been widely implemented and may be too peculiar to healthcare to be cost- effectively deployed. Now, there may or may not be reasons why IETF has never become an ANSI SDO, about which we could talk off line (being an ANSI SDO doesn't mean serious changes in policies and procedures for IETF AFAIK ... yes IETF is international, but I think that being an ISO SDO is more encumbering than simply operating under ANSI ... there is nothing in ANSI statutes that would limit strong international involvement.) For EDIINT specifications, however, HL7 could help out w/r/t the ANSI approval. We could cast all EDIINT specifications under HL7 cover, go through a formal ballot procedure, and get these specs declared as ANSI standards. HL7 has a certain momentum in getting this done, and I do not expect our balloting to bring significant turmoil and changes to the specs. If there is interest, I suggest that one or a few people out of the EDIINT group should get in contact with HL7, which I am glad to catalyze. The easiest way to get through the HL7-ANSI process would be if it were managed by EDIINT people. The HL7 executive branch would assist and guide through the process, the major editorial work, however, would be born by the people that EDIINT delegates to working with HL7. Time estimate, once the process is established, about 6 months. While HL7 is a healthcare information standard, the ANSI approval gained through HL7 is in no way "encumbered" by terms that would limit applicability to healthcare. So, the EDIINT's ANSI approval gained through HL7 would be worth in other U.S. governmental adoptions, of which there is plenty of oportunity at this time. ISSUE #3 TECHNICAL THINGS There are certain technical things that would need quick resolution. For example, we would need to get new application/EDI-* MIME types approved rather quickly. I have submitted a request to the MIME type registry for application/EDI-HL7 several months ago, but I never heard back and my request hasn't been acted on. This again may be a symptom of overload at the IETF/IANA and somebody should do something about this. Anyway, we would need application/EDI-NCPDP and application/EDI-HL7 at least. Then we might need an AS for a simple file based documents (simple and stupid). Basically this would use the same EDIINT mechanism, but the payload could be anything, plain text, XML, proprietory formats. The use case is, e.g., electronic patient consents, etc. CONCLUSION I am being a little forward-looking here because I want to get the attention of the existing vendors asking them to help and suggesting that they would have a good ROI from this effort in terms of growth potential. Note that there is a window of oportunity open now, that requires quick action and a certain dedication. No promise can be made but chances are quite good if enough people work on this. This project would not stand without a certain political infrastructure helping its success, but the main thing we need is committment of the EDIINT group. regards -Gunther From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Tue Oct 31 12:43:36 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA04146 for ; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 12:43:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA11865 for ietf-ediint-bks; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 08:32:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtiwmhc26.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc26.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.51]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA11860 for ; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 08:32:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from vaio ([12.74.40.120]) by mtiwmhc26.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with SMTP id <20001031163826.IIWU16880.mtiwmhc26.worldnet.att.net@vaio>; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 16:38:26 +0000 From: "Rik Drummond" To: "Gunther Schadow" , , "Kepa Zubeldia" , "CLEM" Cc: Subject: RE: Status and Future of EDIINT - more Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 10:38:44 -0600 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <39FEE816.AE3E1EAB@aurora.regenstrief.org> Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit also the current version of as2 is being edited again as a result of the finding of the current interoperability pilot.... if yon wish info on its state over the next few weeks please send email to david.... best regards, rik -----Original Message----- From: Gunther Schadow [mailto:gunther@aurora.regenstrief.org] Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 9:41 AM To: ietf-ediint@imc.org; Rik Drummond; Kepa Zubeldia; CLEM Subject: Status and Future of EDIINT Dear EDIINTers, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Some sectors of the U.S. government have a need for EDI security that is technically best serverd by EDIINT at this time. In particular, the HHS department might possibly adopt EDIINT. This kind of adoption would mean a very important growth potential for all vendors who are now supplying EDIINT solutions. An HHS adoption would basically open up the entire U.S. healthcare market to the EDIINT vendors, including HCFA/MEDICARE and other governmental agencies, not to mention good contracting and consulting oportunities. There are lots of incentives. However, in order for this to happen, certain issues should be dealt with. #1 EDIINT WG appears dead or slow working, we need new livelyhood and faster progress and document turn-around to RFC status. #2 The U.S. government mandates its agencies to primarily adopt ANSI standards. HL7, an ANSI SDO, could be willing to process and release the EDIINT specifications under HL7 cover, so that they may become ANSI standards. This requires willingness and focused cooperation on the part of EDIINT. Timeframe would be relatively short, about 6 months. #3 Some minor technical issues need to be addressed, mainly the official blessing and successful registration of media type for healthcare related EDI standards (HL7, NCPDP) and potentially another AS applying EDIINT structures to miscellaneous documents. DETAILS There is great oportunity for strong growth of EDIINT specifications and products in the healthcare marketplace. The reason is that there are certain security standards to be adopted by the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services to secure EDI transactions using X12, HL7, and NCPDP/EDIFACT EDI message standards. To make a long story short, EDIINT looks like a perfect candidate for the HHS Secretary to choose. EDIINT's outstanding advantage before all other similar message security standards is it's strong support of various non-repudiation services not available with, say, SSL or plain PKCS#7 (aka "S/MIME"). The other great advantage is that EDIINT specs are interoperability tested with several major vendors ready to sell/deploy products. EDIINT is not too new, and relatively mature, which is important for HHS too, since the government can't embark on a trial and error endeavor with bleeding edge hyped technology. So, the future of EDIINT is bright, ... right? There are certain mjor issues, however, that stand in the way, and this message is both an inquiry on the status of EDIINT and a plea to get these issues resolved ASAP. ISSUE #1 EDIINT IS DEAD? EDIINT appears dead -- several of its major drafts have expired by now, supposedly waiting in the queue of the heavily overloaded RFC editor. Last calls have long passed, and yet nothing ever happened in terms of RFC releases. While this may not be the EDIINT WG's fault in particular, it sends a bad "vital sign". The fact that the EDIINT-HL7 draft has expired is my fault, but frankly with everything moving so slowly, and lack of overall interest in HL7 matters by this group, the incentives for cycling through this 6-month draft expiration are not very high. I was hoping that the next draft could be one that cites all RFCs and that it could move up to last call soon... Whoever has contacts into the IETF/IESG policy might want to suggest that the backlog at the RFC editor is a serious problem deserving attention. BTW: I am very worried that the working group constituency and its leadership have turn to ebXML without having brought the EDIINT effort to a conclusion. I reckon that the slowness of EDIINT progress stands in reciprocal relation with the feverish ebXML work. However, the business case for ebXML is hard to see if you take away all the hype. Particularly when it comes down to strong government bet on a specification the more bleeding edge thing has disadvantages. You want to have one thing in place that works now. That is EDIINT. We should finish that first and worry about the omni-XMLification later. ISSUE #2 ANSI ACCREDITATION EDIINT is not an ANSI standard and IETF not an ANSI SDO. The government mandates that governmental agencies look first at adopting ANSI standards. There is one ANSI SDO that has certain security related standards and that is well positioned to push those politically. Those specification, however, haven't been widely implemented and may be too peculiar to healthcare to be cost- effectively deployed. Now, there may or may not be reasons why IETF has never become an ANSI SDO, about which we could talk off line (being an ANSI SDO doesn't mean serious changes in policies and procedures for IETF AFAIK ... yes IETF is international, but I think that being an ISO SDO is more encumbering than simply operating under ANSI ... there is nothing in ANSI statutes that would limit strong international involvement.) For EDIINT specifications, however, HL7 could help out w/r/t the ANSI approval. We could cast all EDIINT specifications under HL7 cover, go through a formal ballot procedure, and get these specs declared as ANSI standards. HL7 has a certain momentum in getting this done, and I do not expect our balloting to bring significant turmoil and changes to the specs. If there is interest, I suggest that one or a few people out of the EDIINT group should get in contact with HL7, which I am glad to catalyze. The easiest way to get through the HL7-ANSI process would be if it were managed by EDIINT people. The HL7 executive branch would assist and guide through the process, the major editorial work, however, would be born by the people that EDIINT delegates to working with HL7. Time estimate, once the process is established, about 6 months. While HL7 is a healthcare information standard, the ANSI approval gained through HL7 is in no way "encumbered" by terms that would limit applicability to healthcare. So, the EDIINT's ANSI approval gained through HL7 would be worth in other U.S. governmental adoptions, of which there is plenty of oportunity at this time. ISSUE #3 TECHNICAL THINGS There are certain technical things that would need quick resolution. For example, we would need to get new application/EDI-* MIME types approved rather quickly. I have submitted a request to the MIME type registry for application/EDI-HL7 several months ago, but I never heard back and my request hasn't been acted on. This again may be a symptom of overload at the IETF/IANA and somebody should do something about this. Anyway, we would need application/EDI-NCPDP and application/EDI-HL7 at least. Then we might need an AS for a simple file based documents (simple and stupid). Basically this would use the same EDIINT mechanism, but the payload could be anything, plain text, XML, proprietory formats. The use case is, e.g., electronic patient consents, etc. CONCLUSION I am being a little forward-looking here because I want to get the attention of the existing vendors asking them to help and suggesting that they would have a good ROI from this effort in terms of growth potential. Note that there is a window of oportunity open now, that requires quick action and a certain dedication. No promise can be made but chances are quite good if enough people work on this. This project would not stand without a certain political infrastructure helping its success, but the main thing we need is committment of the EDIINT group. regards -Gunther From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Tue Oct 31 14:46:35 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA20560 for ; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 14:46:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA23963 for ietf-ediint-bks; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 10:50:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailman.8760.com (portal.8760.com [209.149.125.2]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA23957 for ; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 10:50:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by mailman.8760.com from localhost (router,SLMail V3.2); Tue, 31 Oct 2000 12:54:25 -0600 Received: from gamma [192.168.21.133] by mailman.8760.com [192.168.21.90] (SLmail 3.2.3113) with SMTP id 91935B45A38111D4BB090060974E38DD for plus 5 more; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 12:54:24 -0600 Reply-To: From: "Dick Brooks" To: "Gunther Schadow" , , "Rik Drummond" , "Kepa Zubeldia" , "CLEM" Cc: "Dick Brooks" Subject: RE: Status and Future of EDIINT Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 12:50:43 -0600 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-reply-to: <39FEE816.AE3E1EAB@aurora.regenstrief.org> Importance: Normal X-SLUIDL: DCF920EA-AC1A11D4-BB090060-974E38DD Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Gunther, see comments inline marked with Dick Brooks Group 8760 110 12th Street North Birmingham, AL 35203 dick@8760.com 205-250-8053 Fax: 205-250-8057 http://www.8760.com/ InsideAgent - Empowering e-commerce solutions > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org > [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org]On Behalf Of Gunther Schadow > Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 9:41 AM > To: ietf-ediint@imc.org; Rik Drummond; Kepa Zubeldia; CLEM > Subject: Status and Future of EDIINT > > > Dear EDIINTers, > > > EXECUTIVE SUMMARY > > Some sectors of the U.S. government have a need for EDI security that > is technically best serverd by EDIINT at this time. In particular, > the HHS department might possibly adopt EDIINT. This kind of adoption > would mean a very important growth potential for all vendors who are > now supplying EDIINT solutions. An HHS adoption would basically open > up the entire U.S. healthcare market to the EDIINT vendors, including > HCFA/MEDICARE and other governmental agencies, not to mention good > contracting and consulting oportunities. There are lots of incentives. > > However, in order for this to happen, certain issues should be > dealt with. > > #1 EDIINT WG appears dead or slow working, we need new livelyhood and > faster progress and document turn-around to RFC status. > > #2 The U.S. government mandates its agencies to primarily adopt ANSI > standards. HL7, an ANSI SDO, could be willing to process and release > the EDIINT specifications under HL7 cover, so that they may become > ANSI standards. This requires willingness and focused cooperation on > the part of EDIINT. Timeframe would be relatively short, about 6 months. > > #3 Some minor technical issues need to be addressed, mainly the > official blessing and successful registration of media type for > healthcare related EDI standards (HL7, NCPDP) and potentially > another AS applying EDIINT structures to miscellaneous documents. > > > DETAILS > > There is great oportunity for strong growth of EDIINT specifications and > products in the healthcare marketplace. The reason is that there > are certain > security standards to be adopted by the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human > Services to secure EDI transactions using X12, HL7, and NCPDP/EDIFACT EDI > message standards. To make a long story short, EDIINT looks like a perfect > candidate for the HHS Secretary to choose. EDIINT's outstanding advantage > before all other similar message security standards is it's strong support > of various non-repudiation services not available with, say, SSL or plain > PKCS#7 (aka "S/MIME"). The other great advantage is that EDIINT specs are > interoperability tested with several major vendors ready to sell/deploy > products. EDIINT is not too new, and relatively mature, which is important > for HHS too, since the government can't embark on a trial and error > endeavor with bleeding edge hyped technology. > > So, the future of EDIINT is bright, ... right? > > There are certain mjor issues, however, that stand in the way, and this > message is both an inquiry on the status of EDIINT and a plea to get these > issues resolved ASAP. > > > ISSUE #1 EDIINT IS DEAD? > > EDIINT appears dead -- several of its major drafts have expired > by now, supposedly waiting in the queue of the heavily overloaded RFC > editor. Last calls have long passed, and yet nothing ever > happened in terms > of RFC releases. While this may not be the EDIINT WG's fault in > particular, > it sends a bad "vital sign". > EDIINT is certainly not dead, however I would agree it has been slow moving. The adoption rate of EDIINT AS2 has been steady within the Energy industry, which was the first industry group to my knowledge to formally embrace it as a standard. The Gas Industry Standards Board (www.gisb.org) has adopted EDIINT AS2 as it's E-Commerce standard. The state of New York has publicly endorsed the Gas Industry Standards Board EDIINT AS2 interoperability profile. The Energy industry in general prefers the reliability and security of HTTP based solutions, such as EDIINT AS2, as opposed to E-mail based solutions, such as EDIINT AS1, mainly due to issues with poor reliability and security of e-mail. > The fact that the EDIINT-HL7 draft has expired is my fault, but frankly > with everything moving so slowly, and lack of overall interest in HL7 > matters by this group, the incentives for cycling through this 6-month > draft expiration are not very high. I was hoping that the next draft > could be one that cites all RFCs and that it could move up to last call > soon... > > Whoever has contacts into the IETF/IESG policy might want to suggest that > the backlog at the RFC editor is a serious problem deserving attention. > I attended the IETF meeting in Pittsburgh this July and spoke with Ned Freed about this very issue. There is a huge backlog within the IESG and Ned assured me that the EDIINT request was in the queue. I believe there will be more changes to AS2 and another draft review before we can move forward with a last call/IESG action. > BTW: I am very worried that the working group constituency and its > leadership have turn to ebXML without having brought the EDIINT effort > to a conclusion. I reckon that the slowness of EDIINT progress stands > in reciprocal relation with the feverish ebXML work. However, the > business case for ebXML is hard to see if you take away all the hype. > Particularly when it comes down to strong government bet on a > specification the more bleeding edge thing has disadvantages. You > want to have one thing in place that works now. That is EDIINT. > We should finish that first and worry about the omni-XMLification > later. > > EDIINT is here today and people are using it for secure/reliable B2B E-commerce. ebXML promises broader (international) support tomorrow and may well be the "next generation" of B2B e-commerce, only time will tell. > ISSUE #2 ANSI ACCREDITATION > > EDIINT is not an ANSI standard and IETF not an ANSI SDO. The > government mandates that governmental agencies look first at adopting > ANSI standards. There is one ANSI SDO that has certain security > related standards and that is well positioned to push those > politically. Those specification, however, haven't been widely > implemented and may be too peculiar to healthcare to be cost- > effectively deployed. > > Now, there may or may not be reasons why IETF has never > become an ANSI SDO, about which we could talk off line (being an ANSI > SDO doesn't mean serious changes in policies and procedures for IETF > AFAIK ... yes IETF is international, but I think that being an ISO SDO > is more encumbering than simply operating under ANSI ... there is nothing > in ANSI statutes that would limit strong international involvement.) > > For EDIINT specifications, however, HL7 could help out w/r/t the ANSI > approval. We could cast all EDIINT specifications under HL7 cover, > go through a formal ballot procedure, and get these specs declared as > ANSI standards. HL7 has a certain momentum in getting this done, and > I do not expect our balloting to bring significant turmoil and changes > to the specs. > > If there is interest, I suggest that one or a few people out of the > EDIINT group should get in contact with HL7, which I am glad to catalyze. > The easiest way to get through the HL7-ANSI process would be if it > were managed by EDIINT people. The HL7 executive branch would assist > and guide through the process, the major editorial work, however, > would be born by the people that EDIINT delegates to working with HL7. > Time estimate, once the process is established, about 6 months. > > While HL7 is a healthcare information standard, the ANSI approval gained > through HL7 is in no way "encumbered" by terms that would limit > applicability to healthcare. So, the EDIINT's ANSI approval gained > through HL7 would be worth in other U.S. governmental adoptions, of > which there is plenty of oportunity at this time. > > I spoke with Wes Rishel about assisting HL7 regarding the possible adoption/use of EDIINT and I'm still willing to assist. Let me know the best way to proceed. > ISSUE #3 TECHNICAL THINGS > > There are certain technical things that would need quick > resolution. For example, we would need to get new application/EDI-* > MIME types approved rather quickly. I have submitted a request to the > MIME type registry for application/EDI-HL7 several months ago, but > I never heard back and my request hasn't been acted on. This again > may be a symptom of overload at the IETF/IANA and somebody should > do something about this. > > Anyway, we would need application/EDI-NCPDP and application/EDI-HL7 > at least. Then we might need an AS for a simple file based documents > (simple and stupid). Basically this would use the same EDIINT mechanism, > but the payload could be anything, plain text, XML, proprietory formats. > The use case is, e.g., electronic patient consents, etc. > > EDIINT AS2 supports ANY file type today (using the "INPUT-FORMAT" header) and can also identify the particular type of transaction contained in the "payload" (via the "TRANSACTION-SET" header). This solution has been used by the Natural Gas industry since 1997 for Internet B2B E-commerce (and was mandated by the Department of Energy/FERC) and the Automotive industry (AIAG). > CONCLUSION > > I am being a little forward-looking here because I want to get the > attention of the existing vendors asking them to help and suggesting > that they would have a good ROI from this effort in terms of growth > potential. > > Note that there is a window of oportunity open now, that requires > quick action and a certain dedication. No promise can be made but > chances are quite good if enough people work on this. This project > would not stand without a certain political infrastructure helping > its success, but the main thing we need is committment of the EDIINT > group. > You can certainly count on my employer for support. But more importantly, I believe you may also receive the support of other organizations that currently support EDIINT AS2, such as the Gas Industry Standards Board and other government bodies within the Energy sector (perhaps DOE, FERC and some state PUC's). I'm willing to help open a dialog with some of these organizations. > regards > -Gunther