Chris,
Look at Ronald Bowron's message of just a few minutes ago. It's
another example of what I'm suggesting ...
We don't need to know routing -- just addressing.
When you post a letter via the United States Postal Service or Federal
Express or private courier, you don't know nor care how they route it
to its ultimate destination -- per the address on the envelope! All
you care is that (a) you've got the proper address, and (b) the letter
gets there in a timely manner.
I really think we need to approach the electronic transactions
'mailing' issue the same way. Make sure we know the proper (current)
address, and then turn our 'letter' over to a service that will get it
where we want it to go in a timely manner -- without requiring us to
know how the routing occurs.
Thus our addressing tables (address book) only need know the name of
each receiving entity, each entity's address, and the service to which
we give the message for delivery. [And we can even allow for
differing entity addresses based on the delivery service if we wish.]
And all of this addressing can / should be done outside of the X12N
ISA-IEA structure. In fact the receiver name most likely would be the
entity name which is used to access our table for the entity address
and delivery service. [And if we really wish to, we can also add an
entry to our table for a 'via' address in addition to the 'to'
address.]
Unless I'm missing something [which I hope somebody will tell me],
this is really a straight-forward issue. There's already plenty of
technology around to implement it. Let's not make it too difficult.
Dave Feinberg
Rensis Corporation
206-617-1717
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher J. Feahr, OD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "David A. Feinberg, C.D.P." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 4:32 PM
Subject: Re: Payor Identification Codes
Dave,
I will accept your (and Rachel's) wisdom and the benefit of your
experience
here and (for the moment, anyway) accept that a reliable central DB is
unlikely for many reasons. If we can identify all the data elements
that
would be in such a master-table AND a messaging system, then each
trading
partner could maintain his/her local table of "routing information".
Of
course, one would need that very routing info in order to collect the
information to put in his local routing table! We got a bunch of
chickenless eggs (eggless chickens) here!
Ron's right though... we should develop that list of data elements
first,
and then figure out how to keep the current version in every
sender/receiver's system.
-Chris
Christopher J. Feahr, OD
http://visiondatastandard.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cell/Pager: 707-529-2268
