Subject: RE: EDI and Message Disposition Notifications

From: Andrew Stickland <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 08:56:05 -0000

Dear All,
As a developer of EDI/ECommerce ... software we have inplemented the
EDIINT recommendations and our interpretation has been that for EDIINT
purposes, the MDN is a fundamental requirement. If this is not clear
enough in the EDIINT documentation, then I believe that clarification
should be made on this point.
Much press is being made about EDI being dead! Or position is that
Electronic Data Interchange encompases all business to business
comminications which do not involve human intervention. Whilst XML may
in time see the end of traditional EDI (i.e. EDIFACT, ANSI etc.), XML is
simply another structured method for communicating data between
businesses. Here in the UK, we have been looking at changing the title
of or interoperability certification project (under the auspices of
e-centre uk) to something like "Business Data Exchange over the Internet
(BDXINT)" removing the stigma which has recently been attached to "EDI".
Whatever the facts (EDI has simply moved on to encompass new methods),
the name has been tarnished by those who know no better. Maybe there
should be some thought in this area for this team.
Regards
Andrew Stickland
Development Manager
Perwill plc

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	AMIT Y RAO [SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent:	Thursday, November 04, 1999 1:22 AM
> To:	[email-masked]
> Subject:	EDI and Message Disposition Notifications
> 
> RFC 2298 defines a MIME content-type to report the disposition of a
> message
> after it has been successfully delivered to a recipient. The purpose
> is to
> extend Internet Mail to support functionality often found in other
> messaging
> systems, such as X.400 and the proprietary "LAN-based" systems, and
> often
> referred to as "read receipts","acknowledgements", "receipt
> notifications",
> while respecting privacy concerns.
>     Can anybody please tell me how EDI functionality that was assured
> by
> VANS in the past will be assured by these MDNs when it is stated in
> this RFC
> (i.e. 2298), that because of privacy concerns a user agent is always
> free to
> ignore a request for a receipt. Doesn't this mean that a sender may
> expose
> his business position without being informed whether or not the
> recipient
> has become aware of this business position? Isn't this in fact a lower
> standard of non-repudiation than that found in traditional EDI
> channels?