Subject: as2 comments

From: "Rik Drummond" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 06:28:59 -0500

comments anyone?

-----Original Message-----
From: Dick Brooks [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 1999 6:47 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Comments....

hi Rik/Dale, I've reviewed AS2. Here are my comments:

- this draft looks really good, there are only a couple of issues that we
need to discuss

1. We need to consider opening up the payload to non-EDI objects, e.g
   XML. In other words let's not restrict ourselves to RFC1767 payloads, but
   rather MIME payloads, which includes the RFC1767 content types.

2. We need a PGP example example for appendix A; I volunteer to
   provide this in the next couple of weeks.

3. I think we should add optional support for "opaque" signatures. The GISB
   folks are using opaque signatures and it looks like the XFDL folks are
   looking to support them as well.

4. More specification of error messages that can be returned (e.g. bad
   signature verification, etc.) . I can provide what
   has been specified in GISB as a strawman for this.

5. Need an example of the GISB acknowledgement as an example of a
generalized
   receipt type in section 2.5.2. I volunteer to supply this.

---

From: "Kit Christopher J. Lueder" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 10:46:08 -0400

I agree with the first comment (about not restricting to RFC 1767). Note
that there may eventually be a power struggle between the AS1/AS2
approach and the SCMP approach (which I think is functionally similar to
AS1 but not limited to EDI).
Kit.

-- 
    _/    _/             Kit C. J. Lueder       
   _/   _/         _/   The MITRE Corp.         Tel:  703-883-5205
  _/_/_/    _/  _/_/_/ 1820 Dolley Madison Bl  Page: 703-331-7656
 _/   _/   _/    _/   Mailstop W658           FAX:  703-883-3383
_/    _/  _/    _/   McLean, VA 22102        Mail: [email-masked]
God offers to every mind its choice between truth and repose
-Emerson, Essays: Intellect