Subject: Status of REQ and AS#1 and HL7 draft....

From: Gunther Schadow <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 15:53:54 -0500 (EST)

Hi,

seems like the discussion about SMTP vs. HTTP has been settled by the
words of referees.  It was never my intent to indicate that HTTP
should not be used, that's why I was pretty disturbed getting so much
push back on that SMTP is one way to go.  No matter how big someones
company is, requirements are different, and one size does not fit
everyone.  I completely agree with Carl's technical argument, and I am
frustrated about the never-ending unfair comparison. Yes, Microsoft
and Lotus e-mail packages are about unuseable, but that should be
accounted against Microsoft and Lotus.  

Interestingly the argument goes: because Bill doesn't get it right
(again) the protocol itself is to blame.  Yes, some network
administrators of big companies just don't get it right (they often
don't know what they are doing,) so what? Who is to blame? The
protocol or the people? My machine (FreeBSD, sendmail, uncustomized)
sends every e-mail directly if the address is directly reachable, it
doesn't strip, cut, or otherwise modify anything.  The worst kinds of
relaying happens in each trading partner's domain, so they do have
ready influence.  It has been long ago (10 years, or never?) that I
encountered an e-mail message that was relayed just "somewhere out on
the net," it is *always* under the control of the TPs.  I just can't
see the big issue that people make about e-mail (per se) to be so bad,
it works for me.

BTW, I just had an encounter with an electronic transaction over
HTTP. After the billing was done, I was refered to a non-existing
page, transaction failed partially, billing done, delivery
hosed. Other examples I have seen are synchronous sessions to break
down in midst of a transaction (e.g., Microsoft crashing again.) I
would have been much better served with e-mail, right along the line
of Carls "EDIINT dream." Next example, my bank offers me electronic
access via HTTP, but requires a plug-in that, of course, works only on
Gates' wrecked OS, no Mac, no UNIX, sorry.  I would have no trouble
using an EDIFACT mail, but since e-mail is considered so inferior, the
customer who does not coerce his feet into the wrong sized shoes must
suffer.

Well, I'll leave it at that.

Anyway, on ietf.org I have seen the RFC submission of REQ and AS#1 is
declared as done.  Are they released already?  I am asking because I
am typing up the final changes to the HL7 draft that came out of our
HL7 ballot process.  The document is now an official HL7 document.  I
will release this as the final HL7 version and the ietf-ediint-hl7-02
draft.  For some reason the 01 draft was never posted to the draft
section. I hope that the 02 version will.  If I could refer to RFCs
for REQ and AS#1, it would be cool.

regards
-Gunther

Gunther Schadow ----------------------------------- http://aurora.rg.iupui.edu
Regenstrief Institute for Health Care
1001 W 10th Street RG5, Indianapolis IN 46202, Phone: (317) 630 7960
[email-masked] ---------------------- #include <usual/disclaimer>