RE: profiles in AS2
"Richard Bigelow" <[email protected]> Tue, 6 Dec 2005 14:06:30 -0800
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ediint |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C5FAB1.501B7146 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable These are my comments. Option 2 is preferred. This memo essentially supports John Duker's memo of Dec. 5, Features Profile in AS2. =20 1. This option requires that implementers of feature 1.n also implement all earlier features. Is that reasonable? What if 1.5 is difficult and many vendors don't want to do it, but many want to support 1.6? Not recommended. =20 2. The features header allows the partner A receiving the message to know the other partner's (B's) capabilities. So when A sends to B, A knows what is allowed. A can also check B's AS2-version; 1.1 does not allow any of the controlled features, but does allow compression. A should update some state for every message received from B. B might stop supporting some feature. Recommended. =20 A possible variant of (2) is that a partner could send some message to all its trading partners when its capabilities change. This message would have headers only, no content. It might be useful to send this capabilities message to partners that would rarely receive normal messages. =20 3. This option allows receivers to ignore messages they don't understand, and to detect those messages without looking for unknown headers. But it does not provide a mechanism for the sender to know whether a receiver can receive the message. Suppose we had done compression this way. A could send a compressed file to B, and B could ignore it based on the feature header, but then the file is lost. B could return a new MDN code indicating unsupported-feature, and A could then send the uncompressed file, in this example. In other cases, A would have to use some other mechanism. A could remember that B rejected the file and not try that feature again, but how would A know if B upgraded and can now support the feature? The original intent of the features header was that the sender could know in advance if the receiver supports the feature. 3 is not recommended. =20 4. Before sending a message to B, A should ask B for B's capabilities, and check if B supports the feature. Since B might stop supporting a feature, A should ask each time. This is ok for rare messages, like CEM, but not for common ones, like Multiple Attachments. Not recommended. =20 None of these protocols fully addresses the initial case. Before any messages are exchanged, how do the partners know each other's capabilities? Each partner must assume that the other supports only the basic 1.0 AS2 protocol. Hopefully, they will be able to exchange normal messages, which will contain at least the 1.2 version header. They can then use option 2 to discover each other capabilities. This probably works for most features. For CEM, either they must first exchange test messages that are unencrypted and unsigned to establish CEM capability, or exchange initial certificates manually. =20 Alternatively, the partners would configure each other manually the first time. Thereafter, they would be automatically updated on each other's capabilities. =20 Richard Bigelow Inovis [email protected] ________________________________ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kyle Meadors Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 9:04 AM To: [email protected] Subject: profiles in AS2 =20 I am needing the opinion of the AS2 community on the use of a feature profiles within AS2. Back in 2002, compression was added as an extra feature. Using "AS2-Version: 1.1" in a message indicated the UA could support compression even if the actual message did not contain the compressed envelope. This assisted implementers in knowing if their trading partners could support compression.=20 =20 Moving to the present, users are requesting new features. These include I-Ds for Reliability (from GS1), Multiple-Attachments (oil & gas users) and Certificate Exchange Messaging (Wal-mart, P&G and others GS1 companies). Given AS2's adoption, I am sure there will be others in the future.=20 =20 My question to those on this elist is how to do move forward with new features. What do we do to insure only those who support a feature receive it (e.g., only sending CEM message to trading partners who support that profile)? Also, can anything be done to insure backward compatibility to keep new Feature Header messages from being sent to & breaking older, existing implementations (e.g. older implementation errors gracefully when getting an unrecognized MA message).=20 =20 Here are some options. I would like to hear your thoughts on what is best or other ideas.=20 =20 1. Use AS2-Version header to indicate UA support of profiles (e.g. 1.2 indicates CEM, 1.3 indicates CEM, Reliability). Works like compression (e.g. "1.2" indicates capability of CEM but not an actual CEM message). =20 2. Use a new header, e.g. EDIINT-Features. The features header shows all features supported by UA (e.g. EDIINT-Features: CEM, multiple-attachment) but like AS2-Version does not indicate every message contains profile. =20 3. Use a new header for each feature which is present ONLY in the message using that feature. For example, "CEM-Profile" for CEM messages. This could allow receiving UA to filter in only profiles it recognizes. =20 4. Create a "Capability Query" AS2 Message which returns a Capability MDN. MDN indicates what features receiving UA can support. =20 =20 Kyle Meadors Principal, Test Process Drummond Group Inc. 615.212.0826 =20 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.10/189 - Release Date: 11/30/2005 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C5FAB1.501B7146 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" = xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" = xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" = xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:ns0=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"> <head> <meta http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; = charset=3Dus-ascii"> <meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)"> <!--[if !mso]> <style> v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} </style> <![endif]--> <style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:Tahoma; panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} @font-face {font-family:Verdana; panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple; text-decoration:underline;} p.Source, li.Source, div.Source {margin-top:0in; margin-right:-.75in; margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.2in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Courier New";} span.EmailStyle18 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:Arial; color:windowtext;} span.EmailStyle19 {mso-style-type:personal-reply; font-family:Arial; color:navy;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style> <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" /> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit"> <o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" /> </o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--> </head> <body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vlink=3Dpurple> <div class=3DSection1> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>These are my comments. Option = 2 is preferred. This memo essentially supports John Duker's memo of = Dec. 5, Features Profile in AS2.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>1. This option requires that = implementers of feature 1.n also implement all earlier features. Is that reasonable? What if 1.5 is difficult and many vendors don't want = to do it, but many want to support 1.6? Not = recommended.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>2. The features header allows = the partner A receiving the message to know the other partner's (B's) capabilities. So when A sends to B, A knows what is allowed. = A can also check B's AS2-version; 1.1 does not allow any of the controlled = features, but does allow compression. A should update some state for every = message received from B. B might stop supporting some feature. = Recommended.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>A possible variant of (2) is that a partner could send some message to all its trading partners when its capabilities change. This message would have headers only, no content. It might be useful to send this capabilities message to = partners that would rarely receive normal messages.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>3. This option allows receivers to = ignore messages they don't understand, and to detect those messages without = looking for unknown headers. But it does not provide a mechanism for the = sender to know whether a receiver can receive the message. Suppose we had = done compression this way. A could send a compressed file to B, and B = could ignore it based on the feature header, but then the file is lost. = B could return a new MDN code indicating unsupported-feature, and A could then = send the uncompressed file, in this example. In other cases, A would have = to use some other mechanism. A could remember that B rejected the file = and not try that feature again, but how would A know if B upgraded and can now = support the feature? The original intent of the features header was that = the sender could know in advance if the receiver supports the feature. = 3 is not recommended.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>4. Before sending a message to B, A = should ask B for B's capabilities, and check if B supports the feature. = Since B might stop supporting a feature, A should ask each time. This is = ok for rare messages, like CEM, but not for common ones, like Multiple = Attachments. Not recommended.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>None of these protocols fully = addresses the initial case. Before any messages are exchanged, how do the = partners know each other's capabilities? Each partner must assume that the = other supports only the basic 1.0 AS2 protocol. Hopefully, they = will be able to exchange normal messages, which will contain at least the 1.2 version header. They can then use option 2 to discover each other capabilities. This probably works for most features. For = CEM, either they must first exchange test messages that are unencrypted and = unsigned to establish CEM capability, or exchange initial certificates = manually.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Alternatively, the partners would configure each other manually the first time. Thereafter, they = would be automatically updated on each other's = capabilities.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> <div> <div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal = style=3D'mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><font size=3D1 color=3Dgray face=3DVerdana><span = style=3D'font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana; color:gray'>Richard Bigelow<br> </span></font><font size=3D1 face=3DVerdana><span = style=3D'font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana'><ns0:Street w:insAuthor=3D"IPNet" w:insDate=3D"2005-12-06T13:29:00Z" w:endInsAuthor=3D"IPNet" w:endInsDate=3D"2005-12-06T13:29:00Z"><ns0:address = w:insAuthor=3D"IPNet" w:insDate=3D"2005-12-06T13:29:00Z" w:endInsAuthor=3D"IPNet" w:endInsDate=3D"2005-12-06T13:29:00Z"><font color=3Dgray><span = style=3D'color:gray'>Inovis</span></font></ns0:address></ns0:Street><ns0:= Street w:insAuthor=3D"IPNet" w:insDate=3D"2005-12-06T13:29:00Z" = w:endInsAuthor=3D"IPNet" w:endInsDate=3D"2005-12-06T13:29:00Z"><ns0:address = w:insAuthor=3D"IPNet" w:insDate=3D"2005-12-06T13:29:00Z" w:endInsAuthor=3D"IPNet" w:endInsDate=3D"2005-12-06T13:29:00Z"><font color=3Dgray><span = style=3D'color:gray'><br> </span></font></ns0:address></ns0:Street><font color=3Dgray><span style=3D'color:gray'><a = href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a>= </span></font></span></font><font color=3Dgray><span style=3D'color:gray'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p> </div> </div> </div> <div> <div class=3DMsoNormal align=3Dcenter style=3D'text-align:center'><font = size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'> <hr size=3D2 width=3D"100%" align=3Dcenter tabindex=3D-1> </span></font></div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><b><font size=3D2 face=3DTahoma><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font = size=3D2 face=3DTahoma><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'> [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] = <b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>On Behalf Of </span></b>Kyle Meadors<br> <b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Thursday, December = 01, 2005 9:04 AM<br> <b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> = [email protected]<br> <b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> profiles in = AS2</span></font><o:p></o:p></p> </div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'>I am needing the opinion of the AS2 community on the = use of a feature profiles within AS2. Back in 2002, compression was added as an = extra feature. Using "AS2–Version: 1.1" in a message indicated = the UA could support compression even if the actual message did not contain the compressed envelope. This assisted implementers in knowing if their = trading partners could support compression.</span></font> <br> <font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'> </span></font> <br> <font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>Moving to the present, users are requesting new features. These include = I–Ds for Reliability (from GS1), Multiple–Attachments (oil & gas users) = and Certificate Exchange Messaging (Wal–mart, P&G and others GS1 companies). Given AS2's adoption, I am sure there will be others in the = future.</span></font> <br> <font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'> </span></font> <br> <font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>My question to those on this elist is how to do move forward with new = features. What do we do to insure only those who support a feature receive it = (e.g., only sending CEM message to trading partners who support that profile)? Also, = can anything be done to insure backward compatibility to keep new Feature = Header messages from being sent to & breaking older, existing = implementations (e.g. older implementation errors gracefully when getting an = unrecognized MA message).</span></font> <br> <font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'> </span></font> <br> <font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>Here are some options. I would like to hear your thoughts on what is best or = other ideas.</span></font> <br> <font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'> <o:p= ></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'>1. Use AS2–Version header to indicate UA = support of profiles (e.g. 1.2 indicates CEM, 1.3 indicates CEM, Reliability). Works = like compression (e.g. “1.2” indicates capability of CEM but not = an actual CEM message).<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'>2. Use a new header, e.g. EDIINT–Features. The features header shows all features supported by UA (e.g. = EDIINT–Features: CEM, multiple–attachment) but like AS2–Version does not = indicate every message contains profile.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'>3. Use a new header for each feature which is present = ONLY in the message using that feature. For example, = “CEM–Profile” for CEM messages. This could allow receiving UA to filter in only = profiles it recognizes.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'>4. Create a “Capability Query” AS2<font color=3Dnavy><span style=3D'color:navy'> </span></font>Message which = returns a Capability MDN. MDN indicates what features<font color=3Dnavy><span style=3D'color:navy'> </span></font>receiving UA can = support.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'>Kyle Meadors</span></font><o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'>Principal, Test Process</span></font><o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'>Drummond Group Inc.</span></font><o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'>615.212.0826</span></font><o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> </div> </body> </html> <BR> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>--<BR> No virus found in this outgoing message.<BR> Checked by AVG Free Edition.<BR> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.10/189 - Release Date: = 11/30/2005<BR> </FONT> </P> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C5FAB1.501B7146--