"...would the current ISA ID values be used to do a lookup in the DNS table by the VAN/CH to get the proper routing, or will the entire route be in the ISA?" Only the entity ID (NAIC, DUNS, etc.) would be in the ISA receiver field. We are advocating no changes to the existing ASC X12 standards. All proposals assume a lookup for the routing would be done based on that ID (and its qualifier).
I can't imagine changes would be needed (or possible, given the time needed for data maintenance to wend its way through the standards bureaucracy) to the X12N standards in order to support any recommendations that come out of this sub-working group. "Are we attempting to introduce new standards based on a transport layer function (IP)?" New standards, or "recommendations," are a very real possibility: e.g., a recommendation for exchanging interconnect information, or Kepa's proposed DNS structure for obtaining routing information, etc., etc. These would augment the existing X12 standards and the HIPAA IGs - not replace any parts of them: we have to live with what's already in place. William J. Kammerer Novannet, LLC. +1 (614) 487-0320 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ronald Bowron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, 01 February, 2002 05:47 PM Subject: Re: Using a hybrid DNS Kepa, Based on the possible identifiers that are being discussed here, I'm curious how they will be used in context of the ISA? Does your vision of how this DNS table would be utilized include the use of the existing Sender/Receiver Identifiers (DUNS, HCFA, NAIC) in the ISA? For example, would the current ISA ID values be used to do a lookup in the DNS table by the VAN/CH to get the proper routing, or will the entire route be in the ISA? The reason I ask is that the ISA06 and ISA08 only support 15 characters, not much room to define a complete route. Clarification again on group objectives: Is the purpose of the routing sub-group to recommend changes to the EDI X12N standards, if needed, to support this routing method? Or, work within the confines of the existing standards to identify the best available routing method? Are we attempting to introduce new standards based on a transport layer function (IP)? Or simply identify the best way to use the existing standards to leverage the different transport technologies available (Dedicated IP, Dial-up IP, Async, Bisync, etc.)? Thanks, Ronald Bowron
