Internet EDI Meeting March 1, 1999

As scheduled at the OCC and Rule 22 meetings at the beginning of February,
and announced in their meeting notes, a meeting will be held on Monday
March 1, to discuss strategies for Internet transport of EDI.  The location
is PG&E, 123 Mission St., San Francisco, Room 671, and the hours are 10:00
AM to 4 PM.  In order to get by the guard desk, please RSVP to me by Friday
morning, February 26 -- so these RSVPs don't get lost in other email,
please send your RSVPs, for this purpose only, to me at
jep@primeu.cpuc.ca.gov.

Along with being a topic of general interest, this will at least start to
address directions given in CPUC Resolution E-3582 (p. 13), dated 1/20/99:
"31.  EDI work is being done in several subgroups of the Direct Access
Tariff Working Group.  We direct parties to this process to expedite
implementation of migration to the Internet due to its long-term
cost-effectiveness.  In order to insure that ESPs offering consolidated
billing have the opportunity to avail themselves of the least cost
alternative, we will adopt a sunset date for mandatory VAN charges.  The
UDCs are ordered to offer Internet transmission with service fees that do
not include VAN charges within six months from today.  Service fee
adjustments to reflect the use of the Internet for EDI may be filed by
Advice Letter if the timing of the 1999 RAP proceedings cannot accomodate
this sunset date for mandatory VAN charges."

My proposed agenda is:

1.  Introduction and Overview of Internet EDI - alternative strategies and
status of technical standards.  A very knowledgable speaker is in the
works, and if that doesn't work out I will cover what I'm able to.  If
others would be interested in contributing to this presentation, please
contact me.

2.  Experiences in Developing and Implementing Internet EDI in the Gas
Industry - PG&E.

3.  Status of Implementation Planning in California UDCs.  SCE has made
considerable progress in defining how Internet EDI can both integrate with
their business systems and provide options to its trading partners, and
PG&E will also discuss its results to date.

4.  General Discussion of Goals, Concerns, and Options.  The goals of
implementing Internet EDI can be multifaceted, for example, they may
include:  (a) ensure consistency in implementation of Resolution E-3582,
(b) ensure that the resolution's motivation of reducing cost does minimize
the cost to market participants, (c) maximize interoperability with
existing systems, (d) facilitate market participants' ability to enter the
world of EDI, and (e) anticipate future directions in electronic commerce.
Among these illustrative goals, some may be synergistic with each other,
while some may conflict with others.

5.  Determination of Next Steps.

For those who may wish to do some homework before the March 1 meeting,
recommended references are:

*  Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF, the standards body for the
Internet) EDI-Internet Integration Working Group,
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ediint-charter.html.  Note the draft
Internet standards listed at the end of this web page.

*  Gas Industry Standards Board (GISB) Future Technology Task Force,
http://www.gisb.org/fttf.htm.  Again, links at the end of the web page are
among the most pertinent.

*  CommerceNet, http://www.commerce.net.  CommerceNet is an industry
consortium that is involved in a wide variety of projects, including
general promotion of IETF standards.

A subject that is likely to arise in discussions is Extensible Markup
Language, or XML.  Two good starting points for reading are
http://www.commerce.net/projects/X12-XML and http://www.xmledi.com.  (The
XMLEDI site includes a thought-provoking link, "Boo!!! Are We All
History???" at http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/Floor/5815/dw01.htm.
While this paper argues two contrary points and I don't necessarily agree
100% with either, we would be missing some pertinent long-run context if we
discussed Internet EDI without being aware of the issues that it raises.)

Finally, I note that this effort in California parallels efforts in other
forums, including a newly-formed UIG Internet EDI Workgroup, led by Dave
Darnell.  One difference between our effort and UIG's is that the UIG
workgroup plans to produce a white paper evaluating options but not
recommending a particular solution, while we need to implement a CPUC
resolution.  The issues being addressed by UIG's workgroup are illustrated
by the following minutes of a session during last week's UIG meeting in
Dallas:

>Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 09:10:38 -0700
>To: [UIG Internet EDI Workgroup]
>From: Dave Darnell <dave@systrends.com>
>Subject: UIG Internet EDI Workgroup Meeting February 10, 1999
>
>UIG Internet EDI Workgroup
>February 10, 1999
>
>A meeting was held to formulate objectives of our initial fact finding
efforts.
>
>Points of interest are delineated below:
>
>*** Why change from VAN based EDI? What is wrong now with VANs?  What is
>"right" with VANs?  What are the benefits and drawbacks of the alternatives
>to VAN EDI?
>
>*** We should look at all methods of EDI transport, focusing on advantages,
>disadvantages, costs, etc.
>
>1. VAN
>
>2. Web EDI
>
>3. Extranets
>	3.1 via Private Network
>	3.2 via VPN (Virtual Private Network) over the Internet
>
>4. GISB standard for Internet EDI (custom CGI HTTP server setup with PGP
>encryption)
>
>5. Direct connection to trading partners via modem (asynch, bisynch, etc.)
>
>6. EDIINT standard software (from IETF - Internet Engineering Task Force)
>	6.1 Harbinger Templar
>	6.2 Netscape ECXpert
>	6.3 Cyclone Interchange Server
>	6.4 IPNet
>	6.5 GE Enterprise
>	6.6 Sterling
>
>7. EDIINT hybrid with web/HTTP
>
>8. Outsourcing
>
>9. FTP with and without encryption
>
>10. HTTP/SSL without encryption
>
>11. SMTP/MIME
>
>12. Proprietary TCP protocols (e.g. Templar TCP and IPNET ECP)
>
>Concerns and issues to be addressed:
>
>1. Security
>	PAIN:
>	1.1 Privacy
>	1.2 Authentication
>	1.3 Integrity
>	1.4 Non-repudiation : sender and receiver
>
>2. Reliability
>
>3. Availability
>
>4. Costs
>
>5. Implementation complexity and support issues
>
>6. Technology obsolescence
>
>7. Interoperability
>
>8. Audit trails
>
>9. Time stamping
>
>10. Disaster recovery and historical archives
>
>11. Key management for archival management. Certificate Authority issues.
>
>12. XML/EDI vs. X12/XML
>
>13. Throughput and bandwidth issues
>
>14. "Who do you call" / help desk issues with Internet EDI
>
>15. Data volume concerns
>
>16. Transaction turnaround requirments
>
>17. Firewall issues with Internet EDI solutions and protocols
>
>* No. 17 of concerns added after meeting
>
>====================
>
>We can start fleshing these out in our conference call schedule next week
>(Thursday, Feb.18, 1999 at 9:00 AM PST, 10:00 AM MST, 11:00 AM CST, 12:00
>PM EST)
>
>I have an action item to contact GISB (Rae McQuade) and get official
>approval to distribute the GISB standard to our membership.  When this is
>done, I will send out the document (pdf).
>
>ref. 	Rae McQuade
>	GISB Exec. Dir.
>	713.356.0060
>	gisb1@aol.com
>	www.gisb.org
>
>
>
>Regards,
>Dave Darnell
>
>===================================================
>|   Dave Darnell              
>|   SysTrends, Inc. &  Arizona EC/EDI Roundtable     
>|   1343 N. Alma School Rd. #155      Home: 1850 E. Carver Road       
>|   Chandler, AZ 85224		                         Tempe, AZ 85284            
>|   Tel:(602)899-4787		                  Tel:(602)838-5316 
>|   Fax:(602)899-2813		              Fax:(602)897-8032          
>|   mailto://dave_d@systrends.com     http://www.systrends.com
>===================================================
>
>

.
Follow-Ups: