|
[EDI-L Mailing List Archive Home]
[Message List]
[Reply To This Message]
Re: 997 enveloping
Frank:
This is similar to something our World-Wide EDI product does. Since it provides
a 100% web interface, it takes care of all the 997 acknowledgments on behalf of
the users.
What I understand is that you are working with a third party that is doing the
997s but is using their own "return address" instead of their clients. As this
is like a postal return receipt, it is appears to be coming back from the
"wrong" party, so the original sender cannot reconcile their transactions.
Let me see if I can provide an example of why using the original ISA IDs is
necessary:
The outer part of an X12 interchange is an ISA "segment" (which is ended with an
IEA segment, creating an electronic outer envelope). In this segment is the
Sender and Receiver IDs. The Sender and Receiver IDs are like the Company Name
I've marked in with >:
John Smith
Accounts Payable Department
>Loren Data Corp.
4640 Admiralty Way, Suite 430
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
In this example, the ISA would indicates what company to send it to, but not the
department or end user.
(In the strictest sense, the ISA only indicates the Loren Data Corp. or
"Company" part and it would be up to the VAN (or VANs) involved to match the
company name with the appropriate street address (i.e. mailbox) and the City,
State, ZIP; would represent the VAN (e.g. X12.56 IH segment), but that isn't
germane to this example, and I digress.)
Inside the ISA/IEA envelope is the GS segment (which is ended with a GE segment,
creating an inner envelope). The GS Application Receiver ID indicates which
"department" the following "transaction(s)" should be sent and only need be
unique within an organization or system. The GS is like the part of the postal
address I've marked with +:
John Smith
+Accounts Payable Department
>Loren Data Corp.
4640 Admiralty Way, Suite 430
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
(I won't discuss the end user as that is up to the application and not the EDI
interchange to determine.)
A 997 reports on the validity of the GS/GE envelope and does not itself contain
any reference to the ISA address. So, if a 997 comes back with a different ISA
Sender address than the original ISA Recipient's address, it is impossible to
reconcile the 997 with the original GS/GE as "Accounts Payable Department" is
ambiguous without the original ISA information.
It is therefore essential that a 997 be returned with the same Sender/Receiver
ID as in the original ISA segment.
Regards,
Todd Gould
Chief Technical Officer
Loren Data Corp.
-----Original Message-----
From: NAPOLI, Frank [mailto:
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 6:58 AM
To: 'Robbi McClane';
Subject: RE: [EDI-L] 997 enveloping
Robbi (& List) --
The problem we're faced with is a trading partner who is using a third party
to do translation for them.
The third party does an FTP "get" from our system to receive the original
TS, which contains the actual
Trading Partner's receiver IDs in the ISA and GS. When the third party
sends back the 997s they put
THEIR (not the actual trading partner's) sender IDs in the 997's envelope.
So in this case, the actual Trading Partner is not sending the 997 - the 3rd
party translator is sending it,
in a sense, acting as a VAN doing on-net translation.
Can any VAN or other 3rd party translation provider representatives comment
on how you handle this situation?
Any additional comments from others ?
TIA......Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Robbi McClane [mailto:
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 6:23 PM
To: NAPOLI, Frank
Subject: RE: [EDI-L] 997 enveloping
Yes - since the receiver of the original data being acknowledged is SENDING
the 997 they are ISA & GS Sender and the originating party is the ISA & GS
Receiver.
I'm curious to know if you have received a request for something other than
that and what the reasoning is for doing so..
-----Original Message-----
From: NAPOLI, Frank [mailto:
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 6:05 PM
To:
Subject: [EDI-L] 997 enveloping
Group --
My understanding of the enveloping for a 997 Functional Acknowledgement
is that the GS and ISA sender IDs in the 997 should be the GS and ISA
receiver IDs of the transaction set being acknowledged, and vice -versa
(the 997's receiver IDs should be the sender IDs of the set being
acknowledged).
Isn't that standard operating procedure for 997s?
Thanks for your input,
Frank Napoli
Logistics Management Institute
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
 |
Subscribe in XML format
| RSS 2.0 |
|
| Atom 0.3 |
|
|
Cart
