The ebXML Message Service Specification does have a Multi-hop concept, where not only the sender and receiver are identified in the message header, but each of the intermediaries through which the message traverses.
Unfortunately, we can't (always or ever) assume that we're going to have ebXML Messaging Services available - it will probably be only one of the many packaging techniques described in our recommendations. The lowest common denominator for specifying a receiver will be the X12 ISA Interchange Header - and all of our recommendations will have to assume this minimum capability. This means that when handed an interchange and told to send it on its way, all you (say, a clearinghouse, or VAN or EDIINT software) can assume is what's available in the interchange itself (usually the ISA, but maybe the GS) *and* whatever information is available in our electronic Trading Partner Agreement (like Peter's EDI addresses). So, if some description of multi-hop routing is believed to be needed, it's going to have to be external to the ISA. There are no changes we can make to the ISA - it's impractical that any requests (other than qualifier code changes) could move through the glacially slow X12 process in time for it to be useful to us. We're probably safest in assuming we (WEDi/SNIP ID & Routing) are not going to be developing any recommendations requiring X12 DM requests nor other than the most minimal changes to the HIPAA implementation guides. William J. Kammerer Novannet, LLC. +1 (614) 487-0320 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher J. Feahr, OD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, 01 March, 2002 04:51 PM Subject: Re: Submitter/receiver Ron, This does sound useful, but I don't think there is anything like a 1000 loop in all transactions that might benefit from such a strategy. Your suggestion, however, does make me think that we should have a "smarter" ISA segment... one that could hold the "next stop" and the "final" destination (?). -Chris
