Subject: AS2, HL7,GISB, E5, others?

From: "Dale Moberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 08:06:40 -0500

Hi,

I think the most promising tactic for moving forward with integration of the
EDIINT MIME,
security and acknowledgement formats with other industry initiatives is to
retain
 the AS2 document's  basic alignment with the AS1 document in terms of the
formats
 mentioned and the procedures, but indicate some specific
areas (like those that Carl Hage suggested) in which extensions
are to be expected and the types of extension mechanisms employed.
Then each particular group (health, gas, auto, ...) can write up
its own Internet-Draft referencing its relation to the basic
specifications and its extensions. For health,
the hl7 draft has already done so I guess.

The hope is that we not introduce inconsistencies by mandating something
in AS2 that will need to be changed for some specific EC automation process.
That is why AS2 has tried to remain minimalistic in its requirements and
just to point out what is needed to take the MIME and headers in the SMTP
context
and move them over to the HTTP POST context.

What will help in this process is for people who know each of their
 own particular specifications to make
up a list (like the one Dick sent) so that we can identify
1. the extension mechanisms.
2. the particular choices made.

In this way we can document which areas are likely to be extended
   and, as with Carl Hage's sections, add
  sections to the draft to alert implementors.
  But the specific semantic values used (like multipart/related
type="edi-response")
  are ones that, I think, should go in the more specific Internet Drafts.

As a start on the list of mechanisms I have:
1. Embedding the EDIINT patterns within other MIME structures (as in
   Carl's and Gunther's HTTP reply mechanisms.) Maybe some other
   examples are needed for sending including the "application/formdata" in
   multiparts also; I am still looking at the new v2 E5 website.
2. Adding new header parameter values (like "type=edi-response")
   By the way, this can also be done for "application/edi-x12". You could
   add, for example, version=4010 ; transactiontype="850";  TPsender=Dunsid;
TPreceiver=Dunsnumber
 3. Adding new content-types in place of the EDI types (for example, "text/xml"
and "application/xml"
    formdata, and so on.
4. Using multipart/alternative when alternative mechanisms are deployed (MDN vs
the GISB response)
5. Please add what else I need here and on the next lines!!

I would like to do this before the Minneapolis meeting so that we can wrap AS2
up.

I have discussed this with Rik and I think he agrees that this is the best way
to finish AS2 and
start assisting the other groups if that is what people want to do.

Thanks
Dale Moberg

---

From: "Rik Drummond" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 07:24:19 -0600

I requested a Tuesday meeting at the upcoming Minneapolis IETF meeting. I
don't see it on the agenda and am checking to see what happened.... So we
don't know if there is a meeting yet... We may have to finish this online if
there is not...

Does this direction suit everyone's needs. If not lets discuss it some
more...

Also, if dick sent a list of similarities and differences.. I did not see
it....

Best regards, rik

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dale Moberg [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 1999 7:07 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; Carl Hage; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; Dean Pierson; Dave VanNoord; Paul Morin
> Subject: AS2, HL7,GISB, E5, others?
>
>
> Hi,
>