RE: MIME-based Secure EDI -- AS1

Kit,

Yes, the AS1 spec has been extended to include XML and HTTP.  This is AS2.
Since AS2 is an extension to AS1, AS1 must precede AS2 through the standards
process.

It would be impractical to add XML to AS1 at this point, even though XML (or any
other MIME type) would easily work.  The AS1/AS2 specifications are payload
neutral.  However, to add XML to AS1, we would have to modify all the existing
products and retest.  Since this is already accomplished in AS2, why not proceed
with AS1 and immediately follow with AS2 on the standards track.  What you
suggest would then be in the standard.

Your suggestion is quite valid.  It would be better though to proceed through
AS2 rather than hold up AS1 (and thus also hold up AS2).  Your goal will be
realized.

Regards,

David Fischer
Drummond Group.

-----Original Message-----
From: Kit (Christopher) Lueder [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 11:08 AM
To: David Fischer; [email protected]
Cc: Rik Drummond; [email protected]
Subject: Re: MIME-based Secure EDI -- AS1


Hello? As noted below by David Fischer and Pae Choi, EDI-INT is overlapping with
ebXML and SOAP, but it doesn't provide the full functionality of those protocols
(i.e., transport of any XML document, not just EDI.). Given the progress in this
area of these other protocols, the future for EDI-INT is too limited if it is
framed as EDI-only. I don't see the usefulness of moving forward with AS1 if it
isn't made generally applicable to XML documents. I repeat my issue that I
raised on November 26, 2001, but didn't see any response on this:

I propose an enhancement to AS1, to add MIME types of "application/xml" and
"application/octet-stream"? It is a useful enhancement, to make AS1 more
generally applicable.
Kit Lueder
MITRE.


David Fischer wrote:
> Yes, the latest version is -14.txt.  I sent version 15 to the administrators
> yesterday but I received a reply indicating it will not be posted until after
> the new year.  The only change is to the title and the dates.
>
> Many of us are also involved in the ebXML effort.  I am the editor of the
> ebXML-Messaging team.  The apparent duplication of effort is actual not a
> duplication at all but a continuation.  The AS1 standard has been in work for
> several years but it is only now, after there are several vendors with
products
> on the market and an imbedded base of users, that this method is actually
> becoming a "standard".  In this case, the paperwork is just now catching up
with
> the industry.
>
> In ebXML, the effort is still on paper without implementations.  Some vendors
> are in the process of coding, including some of the vendors on this list.
> Instead of being a duplicate effort, one might suggest that the ebXML effort
> "grew out of" the AS1/AS2 effort (and other efforts such as RosettaNet).  Many
> of the contributors to all these specifications are the same.
>
> Regards,
>
> David Fischer
> Drummond Group.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Pae Choi
> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 3:47 AM
> To: Gary Crough; David Fischer; [email protected]
> Cc: Ned Freed; Rik Drummond
> Subject: Re: MIME-based Secure EDI -- AS1
>
> Hello,
>
> My appologies to stepping into you folks' conversation. Jut FYI,
> there is no
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ediint-as1-15.txt.
> The latest one I can find is "...-14.txt".
>
> Also, would someone or some people share some visions and relationships
> between EDIINT and ebXML standard specification, ebMS[1], which is also
> covering the MIME part as SOAP Attachment[2].
>
> In addition to some similarity, the OASIS consortium just announced a news
> that is saying about the XML and the related security as well as others.
>
> It seems to me we have duplicated efforts going on. I am here to express
> which is better to what nor lobbing for something. I am just trying to
> understand and minimize our duplicated efforts.
>
> Again, my appolgies for this foray.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Pae
>
> [1] ebXML Specification "Message Service Specification";
>      http://www.ebxml.org/specs/index.htm
> [2] W3C Note "SOAP Messages with Attachments";
>      http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP-attachments
> [3] OASIS News " XML Standards Converge at OASIS";
>      http://www.oasis-open.org/news/oasis_news_12_19_01.shtml
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gary Crough" <[email protected]>
> To: "David Fischer" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
> Cc: "Ned Freed" <[email protected]>; "Rik Drummond"
> <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 1:56 PM
> Subject: RE: MIME-based Secure EDI -- AS1
>
> >
> > David,
> > As you indicate EDIINT AS1 is not used for all EDI transported
> > over the Internet ... but just as important not all data being
> > transported via EDIINT AS1 is EDI data.  Here is my 2 cents...
> >
> > I believe the UCC asked for XML data to be used in the testing
> > of EDIINT AS2 to insure there was no marriage to X12 etc.  If neither
> > AS1 nor AS2 is married to EDI data, ideally the title of the
> > specification would not make such an inference.    In its broadest sense
> > EDI means "Electronic Data Interchange" which is fine ... but in common
> > usage EDI has come to be closely associated with X12 and readers assume
> > something called "EDIINT" cannot handle other data structures such as
> > XML.
> > EDIINT AS1 and EDIINT AS2 are both "Secure Peer-to-Peer Business
> > Quality Data Transports".  Right?
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Fischer [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 1:28 PM
> > To: [email protected]
> > Cc: Ned Freed; Rik Drummond
> > Subject: MIME-based Secure EDI -- AS1
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > After reading the comments from the Last Call on AS1, it seems there are
> > two
> > concerns:
> >
> > 1)  The name might suggest that all EDI on the Internet would be done
> > this way.
> >
> > Solution:  Add the words Peer-to-Peer in the title.
> >
> > 2)  There is some dissent to the way in which security is applied in
> > this spec.
> >
> > Solution:  Changing the security methods in AS1 would not align with the
> > original functional specification of this group.  Support for VANs was
> > not part
> > of the functional spec.  No change.
> >
> > A new Draft IETF specification will be issued today with the change in
> > title as
> > in (1) above.
> >
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ediint-as1-15.txt
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > David Fischer
> > Drummond Group.
> >

--
    _/    _/             Kit C. J. Lueder
   _/   _/         _/   The MITRE Corp.         Tel:  703-883-5205
  _/_/_/    _/  _/_/_/ 7515 Colshire Dr        Cell: 703-577-2463
 _/   _/   _/    _/   Mailstop W658           FAX:  703-883-3383
_/    _/  _/    _/   McLean, VA 22102-7508   Mail: [email protected]
Worse than an unanswered question is an unquestioned answer.