Chris, The MX record points to the "mail" server. Actually, to a server that is listening for SMTP on Port 25, whether it is sendmail or otherwise.
The invention would be to use the same concept but it could be a generic notion of EDI server that would be listening at the IP address specified in the MX record. At that address it could listen for EDI transfers in multiple ports: Port 25 for SMTP transfers (including EDIINT), port 443 for SSL-HTTP transfers, and other ports as appropriate. It does not have to be limited to SMTP on port 25. Kepa Christopher J. Feahr, OD wrote: > Kepa, > is the "EDI Server" concept one that is in standard usage or is that the > part we are proposing to "invent" here? If I understand the MX Record > concept correctly, it is essentially a routing table on the DNS server > that tells the world the address of a particular machine that is under > control of a particular internet domain (i.e., a mail server, a > web-server, an SSL server, FTP server, etc.)? If so, would the "EDI > Server" also contain something like the MX record... or would it just be > one of the things that the DNS server's MX record points to? > > Thanks, > Chris > > At 08:36 AM 2/13/02 -0700, Kepa Zubeldia wrote: > >> Chris, >> >> Nothing is "automatic", but a provider that designates a clearinghouse >> as its delivery point would also designate the clearinghouse as its >> DNS server. A provider that has its own "server" acting as its own >> delivery point, would have to point its DNS server to the EDI server >> acting as a delivery point. >> >> Same thing happens today with DNS and email. If I want to get my >> email to be hosted by my ISP for the domain "kepa.com" then my ISP >> will also host my DNS server and will point the MX record of the DNS >> server for kepa.com into the ISP's own mail server. If I want to have >> my own mail server, either my ISP hosts the DNS for kepa.com and >> points the MX record to my own mail server, or I host the DNS myself >> and point it to my own mail server. >> >> Since this infrastructure is already in place for MX records, we could >> as well use it for EDI also. >> >> Kepa >> >> >> Christopher J. Feahr, OD wrote: >> >>> Speaking of semantics, we should figure out a standard term for the >>> DNS model that Kepa has suggested. >>> Anyway, in that model, if a "small provider" (also needs a >>> definition!) is able to send a claim (or anything) directly to a >>> payor using the health plan's "smart EDI address"... will this >>> automatically mean that the payor will be able to discover the >>> address/route back to the provider for 271s, 824s, etc.? (I assume >>> that the 835 will require special handling in a provider-payor >>> agreement) >>> Does the provider's EDI address automatically get entered into the >>> "DNS table" in this proposed model? >>> -Chris >>> Christopher J. Feahr, OD >>> http://visiondatastandard.org >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Cell/Pager: 707-529-2268 >> > > Christopher J. Feahr, OD > http://visiondatastandard.org > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cell/Pager: 707-529-2268
