making a decision on CEM
"Kyle Meadors" <[email protected]> Fri, 10 Feb 2006 11:41:27 -0600
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ediint |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <005801c62e69$39181080$6901a8c0@KYLEDGILAPTOP> |
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0059_01C62E36.EE7DA080
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="windows-1250"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
We have been discussing CEM since the first of December so I believe it =
is
time to make a decision and go forward on it. 6 individuals have =
weighted in
favor the EDIINT=96Features header/Version: 1.2 with a 2 individuals =
opposed.
From the last DGI interop test, we have 6 companies who did not comment =
in
this discussion have indicated they are in favor of the =
EDIINT=96Features
header. Given the numbers, I think we have our decision.
=20
CEM is not perfect =96 AS2 architecture does not allow for true profile
negotiation like ebXML allows =96 but it can work adequately and is =
needed.
ecGIF user community is strongly pushing its vendors for support of =
this.
=20
I can update CEM and EDIINT=96Features drafts next week and submit to =
this
group for review. The comment from Richard Bigelow on a =
EDIINT=96Features only
message for updating your feature lists and sent only to 1.2 trading
partners drew some agreement so I can add that and also clarify the =
start=96up
situation which CEM does not adequately deal with. Any other =
ideas/language
needed?
=20
Kyle Meadors
Principal, Test Process
Drummond Group Inc.
615.212.0826
=20
--=20
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.4/255 - Release Date: 2/9/2006
=20
------=_NextPart_000_0059_01C62E36.EE7DA080
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="windows-1250"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html 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">
<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dwindows-1250">
<meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* 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;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:Arial;
color:windowtext;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vlink=3Dpurple>
<div class=3DSection1>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>We have been discussing CEM since the first of =
December so I
believe it is time to make a decision and go forward on it. 6 =
individuals have weighted
in favor the EDIINT–Features header/Version: 1.2 with a 2 =
individuals
opposed. From the last DGI interop test, we have 6 companies who did not
comment in this discussion have indicated they are in favor of the =
EDIINT–Features
header. Given the numbers, I think we have our =
decision.<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'>CEM is not perfect – AS2 architecture does not =
allow
for true profile negotiation like ebXML allows – but it can work =
adequately
and is needed. ecGIF user community is strongly pushing its vendors for =
support
of this.<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'>I can update CEM and EDIINT–Features drafts =
next week
and submit to this group for review. The comment from Richard Bigelow on =
a
EDIINT–Features only message for updating your feature lists and =
sent
only to 1.2 trading partners drew some agreement so I can add that and =
also
clarify the start–up situation which CEM does not adequately deal =
with.
Any other ideas/language needed?<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: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.4/255 - Release Date: =
2/9/2006<BR>
</FONT> </P>
------=_NextPart_000_0059_01C62E36.EE7DA080--