RE: Comments on the recent EDIINT AS2 v12 draft

Comments on the recent EDIINT AS2 v12 draft  Rik,

In the hope that we can reach a reasonable solution to this matter, I will
respond to your points. My comments are bounded by <db> and </db>.

History of v12 draft:
            - after the as2 v2 draft we attempted to combine the then
current as2 draft with
              gisb standard used in the energy industry.

<db> As I recall, it was both the Energy, represented by NAESB/GISB
(http://www.naesb.org) and Automotive industries, represented by AIAG,
http://www.aiag.org that contributed the sections in AS2 you are referring
to.
</db>

        - during the recent two interop rounds with twenty plus products,
implementing
              the non gisb part, it became apparent that the v11 draft was
very confusing because
              of the attempt to combine the two.

<db>The two interop rounds you refer to were sponsored by UCC and
facilitated by Drummond Group. These tests were conducted in a closed forum
and only those companies that were willing to pay UCC/DGI the entrance fee
(originally $15,000 now I believe it's $35,000) are allowed to participate.
The test plan, which Drummond Group developed, explicitly excluded certain
parts of the AS2 specification (the Energy/AIAG parts) . However the test
is marketed/promoted as an "AS2 test" even though  significant parts of AS2
are not being tested.

To my knowledge, neither the test plan nor any of the testing  experiences
or  results were discussed on the EDIINT WG list before, during or after the
tests were conducted. The only public information that I'm aware of
regarding these tests is available at  www.drummondgroup.com, ref:
http://www.drummondgroup.com/html-v2/pr_08-27-02.html

I see several issues with the  current  testing process:

1. The entrance fee is a barrier to entry for some companies

2. The test plan  has  not approved through the IETF process.

3. The test unfairly excluded important parts of AS2 functionality, which
the Energy and Auto industries contributed. Niether were these industry
groups given an opportunity to express their opinions, because the work took
place outside the IETF process in a private forum.
 </db>

        - the twenty plus vendors interop testing help make the v12 draft
clearer
<db>The twenty plus vendors, operating in private, changed the AS2
specification without so much as consulting the co-authors of the spec. The
fact that these vendors aren't implementing certain sections of AS2 does not
give them the right to remove them. I know of several AS2 implementations
that were negatively affected by this decision. Why weren't these
implementers involved in the discussion to make these changes? The answer is
because the discussions did not follow the IETF process. None of the
proposed changes in V12, including the removal of an AS2 co-author, were
discussed on the EDIINT WG list.
</db>
        - Dick Brooks called very concerned that I dropped the gisb info
from the v12 draft
        - I asked that he send me the gisb standard and I would append it to
the current v12 draft, call it v13, to facilitate discussion, while ensuring
the non gisb part has clarity,
              which it did not have in v11

<db>You state the v11 spec lacked clarity, I agree it is a bit rough.
However this was not a hinderance for numerous implementers of the V11 spec,
as indicated by the number of  interoperable products listed in your press
release, plus the number of  production  implementations in the Energy
industry (over 50), which I'm aware of.

Additionally, all of the text you've requested from me is already available
to you in the V11 draft of AS2. Simply cut and paste the parts  of V11 that
were removed in V12 and you will have what you' ve  requested.
</db>
The suggested process at this time:
        - please review the contents of the v12 draft for clarity and
correctness for the non gisb part
        - once this is complete we will discuss the gisb part which Dick
Brooks will send me and I
          will include in the next release v13
        - Then we will discuss (based on the old v11 draft) if there is a
means to combine them
          in the same draft/document

<db>I respectfully disagree. I firmly believe it would be less work and more
efficient to start with V11.

I propose an alternative approach which begins with the V11 spec. Start by
incorporating text from V12 into V11 and the resulting V11+ spec be issued
as draft V13 to the EDIINT WG for discussion.

I also propose the following enhancements to improve the overall process:
- Conduct all discussion regarding AS2 spec changes on the EDIINT list
server so the entire EDIINT community may participate in the discussion

- Seek consensus from the EDIINT community with regard to testing plans.
Testing    results should  also  be  disclosed/ discussed in the open on the
EDIINT WG list

-AS2 testing should not be cost prohibitive so that all interested parties
may participate

- Testing should execrise as much of the AS2 technical specification as
possible, ideally this would be 100% of the defined spec, but that may not
be achievable.
</db>
Non technical issue:
        - the energy industry refers to the gisb spec as as2
        - the retail industry and others using the non gisb part of the spec
refers to it as as2
        - both, in some cases mandate the use of as2 specs.. Which means we
have a naming issue
          if we decide to split them into two specs
        - fairness is the key to resolving this issue, especially on the use
of the as2 name.

Please review v12 asap for clarity and correctness.

<db>I've worked in the IETF since 1992 and I believe the IETF process is
fair and open. We simply need to follow the defined process and use the
EDIINT WG list and F2F IETF meetings to hold open discussions on matters
pertaining to AS2.

This will ensure the broadest exposure to interested parties and provides an
opportunity to participate in a fair and open process.

I believe there is an opportunity now to take a step in this direction by
issuing a V13 draft using the  alternative  approach  described  above.
</db>
Regards,

Dick Brooks
Systrends, Inc
7855 South River Parkway, Suite 111
Tempe, Arizona 85284
Web: www.systrends.com <http://www.systrends.com>
Phone:480.756.6777,Mobile:602-684-1484,eFax:240-352-0714

  -----Original Message-----
  From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Rik Drummond
  Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 2:41 PM
  To: [email protected]
  Subject: Comments on the recent EDIINT AS2 v12 draft


  History of v12 draft:
              - after the as2 v2 draft we attempted to combine the then
current as2 draft with
                gisb standard used in the energy industry.
          - during the recent two interop rounds with twenty plus products,
implementing
                the non gisb part, it became apparent that the v11 draft was
very confusing because
                of the attempt to combine the two.
          - the twenty plus vendors interop testing help make the v12 draft
clearer

          - Dick Brooks called very concerned that I dropped the gisb info
from the v12 draft
          - I asked that he send me the gisb standard and I would append it
to the current v12 draft, call it v13,
            to facilitate discussion, while ensuring the non gisb part has
clarity,
                which it did not have in v11

  The suggested process at this time:
          - please review the contents of the v12 draft for clarity and
correctness for the non gisb part
          - once this is complete we will discuss the gisb part which Dick
Brooks will send me and I
            will include in the next release v13
          - Then we will discuss (based on the old v11 draft) if there is a
means to combine them
            in the same draft/document

  Non technical issue:
          - the energy industry refers to the gisb spec as as2
          - the retail industry and others using the non gisb part of the
spec refers to it as as2
          - both, in some cases mandate the use of as2 specs.. Which means
we have a naming issue
            if we decide to split them into two specs
          - fairness is the key to resolving this issue, especially on the
use of the as2 name.

  Please review v12 asap for clarity and correctness.

  Best regards,
  Rik Drummond
  EDIINT Chair







  <<...>>