Re: Split within EDIINT: Multiple versions of AS2

In message <[email protected]>, Dick 
Brooks <[email protected]> writes
>
>It seems clear from the comments provided that Cyclone Software (represented
>by Dale Moberg and Gary Crough) and Rik Drummond oppose a single AS2
>standard for exchanging EDI/XML data.
>
>On the other hand we've heard from Andrew Strickland, Mike Costa, Steve
>Lowery, Wayne Mackintosh, and myself who appear in favor of developing a
>single AS2 standard for exchanging EDI/XML data.

For what it's worth I would tend to agree, but...

>I believe we must resolve this issue before we can move on and address the
>deeper technical issues.

What I'm not clear about is just how incompatible the two "subsets" are. 
Are we talking fundamental, irreconcilable differences here?  Or is it 
just a matter of tweaking a few bits and pieces of one or other subset 
to bring them together?

[Snip]

I realise that we have two very substantial groups of users who will 
each support their own particular variant and will be loath to go to the 
time, trouble and expense of making alterations since they have 
production systems already in the field. But I would point out that both 
groups have "jumped the gun" and based their implementations on what is 
still only a draft.  This sad situation has been brought about because 
there is a clear need for an EDIINT standard but the path to RFC status 
has been long-winded.  Issues such as these will presumably only serve 
to delay it still further.

I think that we should establish AS2 as a strong technical standard that 
does not pander to either group.  After all, their applications will not 
suddenly stop working just because they can no longer call their 
software "AS2-compliant".

In reply to Gary Crough's comment that we already have a split between 
AS1 and AS2, I would say that in this case there is a clear technical 
requirement for a split because of the differing requirements of SMTP 
vs. HTTP and the fact that HTTP is not fully MIME-compliant.  In an 
ideal world we would not need the AS1(RFC3335)/AS2 split either but 
history has meant that this split was the starting point for the EDIINT 
effort.  It is something that EDIINT had no control over.  The split 
within AS2 is different: I don't think there is a fundamental technical 
need for it and we are at the cusp in history where we can avoid it if 
we so wish.

Chris.

-- 
Chris Davenport
Davros Computer Systems