Re: New SCMP Discussion List

At 14:15 28/06/99 -0500, Gunther Schadow wrote:
[...]
>Now my wining.  I think that the emerge of this SCMP draft is a sign
>of a bad coordination that goes on in the IETF.  There is a working
>group called EDI-Internet Integration (EDIINT) that addresses EDI/EC
>messaging over the internet for quite a few years now. I want to know
>why there is a completely new and seemingly unrelated protocol "SCMP"
>now?

I am just an interested party, and not a principal in the SCMP proposal,
but I would like to toss in a couple of reasons why I find SCMP useful in
ways that EDIINT is not:

(a) SCMP is quite specific that it is intended to be payload- and service-
neutral.  I think future developments of this specification might form a
useful basis for a range of applications that require non-repudiable
message delivery over a variety of message transports.

(b) The SCMP specification is simple, and very easy to read.  This is in
stark contrast to the EDIINT specifications (and I am on record as having
made comments to this effect on the EDIINT discussion list).

I think that the simplicity and directness of the SCMP specification is in
the spirit of other classical and succesful IETF protocols.

#g
--


------------
Graham Klyne
([email protected])