Digital signature with INVOIC file

Following to my previous post about digital signature, I have gathered further information.

In Italy digital signature is mainly used with INVOIC files. 

A new friend, Mr. Matteo Maiorano employed at Derwid srl, sent me a very interesting sample: I have post it in the forum for your findings. 

Digital signature

Time ago I received, from an EDI customer, an Interchange proposal concerning COREOR messages with a digital signature.

In the beginning it seemed to me a very good idea: the delivering of import containers is a rather delicate matter and a digital signature can: 

• Prove that EDI message is created from a known sender; 
• EDI message is not altered in transit.

Unfortunately, when I saw the sample COREOR  I could not believe my eyes; message looked, more or less, like this: 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Hash: SHA1

UNB+UNOA:3+XXXX:ZZ+ITSALSCT:ZZ+120902:1055+3733'

(...)

UNZ+1+3733'

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAk5gmeYACgkQ3lkq35eQ2s+iowCggEuSTpVW5cxbpz+W9gnVCzU0

UxcAn3t2ZRUCkKIH/ElN/UmVAz0po21d

=aSjJ

-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

For sure digital signature could be verified manually by means of an external program before processing the message but, at least in my very modest opinion, this was not the way to implement digital signature in an EDI protocol.

I spent some time to found out a consistent documentation and also discussed this issue in a Linkedin's group: I would like to share EANCOM (ie. a subset of UN/EDIFACT) documentation in case you need to handle a similar issue.

Mapping a remark field into FTX segment

Mapping an internal remark field, from the source data base to a FTX segment of an out-coming EDI transaction, may be  an issue.

First of all you should wonder which kind of data the end user could store into the source data base as remark and if it is appropriate to send it to an external customer: while debugging some EDI transactions it happened me to find very funny data and even some telephone numbers to contact, at the transport stage of the container, in case of problems. 

Furthermore, piece of data into FTX segment, are often incompatible with the character set adopted in the interchange and, although unnecessary, prevent message to be properly processed. 

Here below some very common errors which happen in my EDI environment mainly based on the UNOA character set:

Lowercase characters

FTX+AAI+++clean container foodstuff quality'

Missing escape character "?" in conjunction with ":"

FTX+AAI+++RELEASE DATE FROM: 19/09/2012'  

 Not allowed character "\"

FTX+AAI+++CLEAN CONTAINER \ FOODSTUFF QUALITY'

Main carriage transport in COPARN

An error that often I have to handle manually in my EDI environment concerns the 'Main Carriage Transport' declared in the H.TDT.TDT segment of some COPARN messages.

Let’s have a look at the following sample:

(...)
TDT+20+2036+1++XXX:172:166+++XXX:103::VESSEL NAME'
LOC+9+ITGOA:139:6:GENOA'
LOC+11+AUMEL:139:6:MELBOURNE'
DTM+133:201209030000:203'
NAD+CF+XXX:172:166'
NAD+MR+ITSALSCT’
EQD+CN++22GP:102:5++2+4'
RFF+SQ:001'
EQN+1'
LOC+163+AUMEL:139:6:MELBOURNE'
MEA+AAE+X+KGM:19250'
TDT+1+TRANSPORTER+3'
LOC+165+ITSAL:139:6:SALERNO'
(...)

That’s a COPARN concerning a container with the following characteristics:

1. To be loaded onto a vessel qualified as 'Main Carriage Transport';
2. Loading port: Genoa (ITGOA);
3. Place/Port of discharge: Melbourne (AUMEL);
4. Place/Port of destination for stowage purposes: Melbourne (AUMEL);
5. Activity Location: Salerno (ITSAL).

So here is the final container route:

1. Collected/Deivered at Salerno port;  
2. Loaded from Salerno to Genoa Port by a feeder vessel;  
3. Transhipped from Genoa to Melbourne Port by the mother vessel declared in the TDT segment.

Of course not always mother vessels, operational on external quays,  are stored into my system and unfortunately affected COPARN messages get rejected due to missing valid vessel call.

Restow in BAPLIE file

Some days ago I received the following complaint from an EDI customer:

"However everytime we receive a departure BAPLIE from your Terminal, where we have performed restows, we always get the restowed units showing as loaded from your port which clashes with the restowed unit."

In the beginning, I thought to have messed up some mapping rules but after having a look at the config file I realised that, at my end, everything was set-up properly. 

Here is the EQD segment group concerning a unit restowed by my Terminal:

(...)

LOC+147+0250208::5'
MEA+WT++KGM:6960'
LOC+9+ITSAL'  >> Place/port of loading
LOC+11+PTLEI' >> Place/port of discharge
LOC+83+PTLEI' >> Place of delivery (by on carriage)
LOC+76+ILHFA' >> Original port of loading
RFF+BM:1'

EQD+CN+ABCD1234567+22G1+++5'
(...)

I guess that customer's EDI translator has some issues in handling OPOL (Original Port of Loading) in conjunction with POL (Port of Loading): of course that's not up to me and, at least once, I was happy to close the support request without changing anything ! 

Adding CR/LF to an EDIFACT message

Everybody who handles EDIFACT messages, at least once in his life, needs to have a closer look at the message/segment contents in order to figure out the reason of a mapping failure: well, it's a dirty job but someone got to do it...

Then things may get harder when message has no CR/LF breaks and your EDIFACT translator has not a built in tool  to make message readable: find out the error becomes a real nightmare !

Well, a reader of  this blog (off course smart people read smart blog :D) has created a web application with the following features: 

1. Adding a CR/LF after every segment ends;
2. Properly numerate every line/segment of the message. 

You can have a look at this new brand project here and maybe, in the future, the developer will also add some extra features, who knows... :)

I have also added the site in the Web Utilities section.

Thank you Nick for sharing your good job !

Standard Exchange Format (SEF)

A reader asked me further information about SEF files.

The Standard Exchange Format (SEF) is an open-standard, computer readable, text format that contains the schematic information of an  EDI document.  

Basically you can use SEF files for:

• Exchanging information about implementation guidelines with your trading partners;
• Importing directly translation or mapping in your EDI software to ease implementation; 
• Posting information via networks to mailboxes or electronic bulletin boards for mass dissemination of implementation guidelines. 

SEF is an open standard, which allows you to create and distribute your own SEF files without any permission or having to pay any royalty fees.

SEF files are editable either with a text editor or with a free tool, developed by EDIdEv, available here.

Here I have upload a MIG which explains the layout of  a SEF file.

Here you can find a sample of a SEF file.