RE: The need for speed: XML vs. Internet EDI

[Dick Brooks]

Mark Malatak wrote:   >In fact, properly structured Internet based Value Added Networks provide instantaneous posting of documents to the trading partners access portal. As these access  >portals are private, secure and connected directly to the trading partners systems, the end result is virtual real-time Electronic Commerce. Unless said trading partner has a posted  >server specifically for the receipt of EC messages, they can not count on a more expedient delivery.   This is precisely my point, if a company has a "system" and an Internet connection they can communicate directly with their trading partners and "they can not count on a more expedient delivery", as you indicated above. Inserting a VAN in the middle would would introduce both cost and latency, it seems we agree.   >Also, this PC user will have to execute delivery (be it FTP, SFTP, SMTP or  > whatever) to each of their trading partners in separate sessions. This indeed, will take much more time than posting their messages to one central clearing house.   I would be interested in seeing some statistics to quantify your claims that it takes "much more time" for a trading partner to communicate directly as opposed to going through a VAN. Do you have empirical data to share? We have clients sending thousands of  EDI transactions daily to their trading partners directly over the Internet, many of these exchanges are completed in less than 5 seconds at zero incremental cost.   I have a hard time believing it's more efficient to communicate through a third party when two parties can communicate directly. Perhaps a technical explanation showing how an intermediate point is able to speed communications between two end points would help. I'm thinking of a scenario where a company uses software that can simultaneously send to multiple trading partners, this is possible today and is the typical configuration at our client sites.   >Additionally, clearly, one of the advantages to a well architectured Internet based VAN is the reliability and security they provide. One could not conjecture that a direct transmission, >without auditing, log reports, and verification, without certificate handling and encrypted message handling would be more reliable than a properly structured IVAN without fear of >contradiction.   There are products available that provide logging, auditing, key handling, encryption and efficient, reliable, secure delivery.  I've met people that have experienced ROI's of 4 months moving from VAN's to the Internet, without compromising reliability or security.     >Regarding your "case in point", which I think is a valid one: Clearly, we are talking about a company with vast resources and capital. Unfortunately, E commerce needs to be the venue >of the masses, not limited few that have the resources to compete with multi million dollar companies. I do however think we are in agreement on this point. Implementing unique >services does provide a competitive advantage. But the post office must operate for everyone, not just the rich. The rich, however, can feel free to hire a messenger as they have the >resources.    Actually, any company spending $1,000 or more per month on VAN charges can experience a very reasonable ROI by implementing their own E-Commerce system. I'm not sure if you consider this a company with "vast" resources. I do agree that we will always need a "post office box"  (VAN) for those people who can't justify having their own "mailbox".   Dick Brooks http://www.8760.com/   ------ XML/edi Group Discussion List ------ Homepage http://www.XMLedi-Group.org Unsubscribe send email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Leave the subject and body of the message blank Questions/requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To receive only one message per day (digest format) send the following message to [EMAIL PROTECTED], (leave the subject line blank) digest xmledi-group your-email-address To join the XML/edi Group complete the form located at: http://www.xmledi-group.org/xmledigroup/mail1.htm