RE: FW: New AS2-Version Header
"David Fischer" <[email protected]> Thu, 11 Apr 2002 09:32:07 -0500
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ediint |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
If an older system received a compressed message, it would try to unpackage the message and fail because it did not understand all the fields in the Content-Type. They would also not understand the AS2-Version field but if they follow HTTP rules, they should ignore the AS2-Version header. Compression is typically a flag in the Trading Partner record of the Trading Partner database. Whether or not messages are compressed would typically be negotiated out-of-band. Exactly how this is accomplished is implementation dependant. When communicating to an older system, don't set this flag. The AS2-Version header will not help with older versions. We are considering this header in anticipation of future tests interoperating with the current crop of system. The value 1.1 will indicate that the sending system supports all the functionality in this test round -- basic functionality plus compression. Regards, David Fischer Drummond Group. -----Original Message----- From: Steve Lowery [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 6:35 AM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: FW: New AS2-Version Header I apologize if I haven't been following along in the compression discussion but what happens if an older system (one that doesn't have compression) receives a compressed message. Maybe it doesn't matter, you should be able to elect if you want compressed messages or not. Is the AS2-Version field an indication that the message may be compressed? Again I apologize for not following but what compression engine will be used? >>> "David Fischer" <[email protected]> 04/10/02 03:27PM >>> The UCC AS2 Interoperability test is in progress and some concerns have been raised about backward compatibility to previous test rounds. Specifically, this round includes the new EDIINT Compression functionality. The following discussion has been in progress. We would like to include the EDIINT list in this discussion and solicit your comments. Best Regards, David Fischer Drummond Group. -----Original Message----- From: David Fischer [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 1:45 PM To: AS2 Interoperability Test Subject: New AS2-Version Header We had another long discussion today about backward compatibility. We decided to look ahead to future tests and possible concerns about backward compatibility to this test. We agreed to add a new header for this test round: AS2-Version: 1.1 Yesterday's test to all participants with this new header did not reveal any failures. Since no system was expecting this header, and yet no one failed the message, this would indicate that this header may be safely included in messages sent to older systems. This header will be included in the Final Interoperability Report with an explanation that v1.1 means the sending system supports all of the AS2 basic functionality and it supports Compression as defined in the EDIINT Compression Draft specification. The version number MAY be incremented in the future if the addition of new functionality warrants such an action. It will be REQUIRED, for this round and in the future, that this header be included on any sent message, and any returned MDN (but not with a single line HTTP status response). Receiving systems MUST NOT fail due to the absence of this header. The absence of this new header would nominally indicate a system from a previous test round. At this time, the presence of this header is informative in nature only and the receiving system may or may not utilize this information at the discretion of the implementer. Before this new header can be added to the AS2 specification, we will need to request discussion from the EDIINT list. This header would be included in the AS2 specification with the value of: AS2-Version: 1.0 This header would also be inserted into the EDIINT Compression specification with the value of: AS2-Version: 1.1 This header would be for AS2 systems only and would not be included when Compression is performed on an AS1 message. Does this meet with everyone's approval? Regards, David Fischer Drummond Group.