RE: EDINT WG - five Suggestions

Rik,

The North American Energy Standards Board (http://www.naesb.org/) is
currently reviewing the situation regarding AS2; several options are under
consideration. I cannot commit to any further AS2 development until the
NAESB membership (http://www.naesb.org/pdf/memstats.pdf) has had ample time
to review and discuss the matter.


Thank you,

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: Thursday, February 27, 2003 7:59 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: EDINT WG - five Suggestions



Well twenty three products just passed the as2 s/mime profile for ucc.
>From
this test we found some more clarity problems, but they were minor. Also
in
the current v12 draft we found a couple of examples that were incorrect.
I
suggest the following:

	- we submit the v13 draft, with these changes above, with the
name
	  ietf-ediint-as2-u or ietf-ediint-as2-s
	- we spend march reviewing it to ensure it is clear
	- we see if it is complete and if so send it on for a last call,
a
	  precedent for rfc status
	- dick brooks please send me a ietf-ediint-as2-g-v13 or
ietf-ediint-as2-p-v13
	  document so that we can get it on the ietf drafts page for
comment and review

Notice that I have offered two different names for the gisb and ucc
drafts names.

	- the as2-g and as2-u versions indicate industries respectively
gisb and ucc
	- I suggest we name them as2-p and as2-s to indicate
technologies pgp and smime
	  respectively so that we do not limit either to an industry --
preceptionally


Please give me your feed back.... Best regards, rik