Subject: RE: MIME-based Secure EDI -- AS1

From: "Gary Crough" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 14:56:34 -0700

David,
	As you indicate EDIINT AS1 is not used for all EDI transported
over the Internet ... but just as important not all data being
transported via EDIINT AS1 is EDI data.  Here is my 2 cents...

	I believe the UCC asked for XML data to be used in the testing
of EDIINT AS2 to insure there was no marriage to X12 etc.  If neither
AS1 nor AS2 is married to EDI data, ideally the title of the
specification would not make such an inference.    In its broadest sense
EDI means "Electronic Data Interchange" which is fine ... but in common
usage EDI has come to be closely associated with X12 and readers assume
something called "EDIINT" cannot handle other data structures such as
XML.
	EDIINT AS1 and EDIINT AS2 are both "Secure Peer-to-Peer Business
Quality Data Transports".  Right?

-----Original Message-----
From: David Fischer [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 1:28 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Ned Freed; Rik Drummond
Subject: MIME-based Secure EDI -- AS1

After reading the comments from the Last Call on AS1, it seems there are
two
concerns:

1)  The name might suggest that all EDI on the Internet would be done
this way.

Solution:  Add the words Peer-to-Peer in the title.

2)  There is some dissent to the way in which security is applied in
this spec.

Solution:  Changing the security methods in AS1 would not align with the
original functional specification of this group.  Support for VANs was
not part
of the functional spec.  No change.

A new Draft IETF specification will be issued today with the change in
title as
in (1) above.

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ediint-as1-15.txt

Best Regards,

David Fischer
Drummond Group.

---

From: "Pae Choi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 01:46:45 -0800

Hello,

My appologies to stepping into you folks' conversation. Jut FYI,
there is no
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ediint-as1-15.txt.
The latest one I can find is "...-14.txt".

Also, would someone or some people share some visions and relationships
between EDIINT and ebXML standard specification, ebMS[1], which is also
covering the MIME part as SOAP Attachment[2].

In addition to some similarity, the OASIS consortium just announced a news
that is saying about the XML and the related security as well as others.

It seems to me we have duplicated efforts going on. I am here to express
which is better to what nor lobbing for something. I am just trying to
understand and minimize our duplicated efforts.

Again, my appolgies for this foray.

Best regards,

Pae

[1] ebXML Specification "Message Service Specification";
     http://www.ebxml.org/specs/index.htm
[2] W3C Note "SOAP Messages with Attachments";
     http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP-attachments
[3] OASIS News " XML Standards Converge at OASIS";
     http://www.oasis-open.org/news/oasis_news_12_19_01.shtml

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Crough" <[email-masked]>
To: "David Fischer" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Ned Freed" <[email-masked]>; "Rik Drummond"
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 1:56 PM
Subject: RE: MIME-based Secure EDI -- AS1

---

From: David Fischer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 08:22:17 -0600

Yes, the latest version is -14.txt.  I sent version 15 to the administrators
yesterday but I received a reply indicating it will not be posted until after
the new year.  The only change is to the title and the dates.

Many of us are also involved in the ebXML effort.  I am the editor of the
ebXML-Messaging team.  The apparent duplication of effort is actual not a
duplication at all but a continuation.  The AS1 standard has been in work for
several years but it is only now, after there are several vendors with products
on the market and an imbedded base of users, that this method is actually
becoming a "standard".  In this case, the paperwork is just now catching up with
the industry.

In ebXML, the effort is still on paper without implementations.  Some vendors
are in the process of coding, including some of the vendors on this list.
Instead of being a duplicate effort, one might suggest that the ebXML effort
"grew out of" the AS1/AS2 effort (and other efforts such as RosettaNet).  Many
of the contributors to all these specifications are the same.

Regards,

David Fischer
Drummond Group.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Pae Choi
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 3:47 AM
To: Gary Crough; David Fischer; [email-masked]
Cc: Ned Freed; Rik Drummond
Subject: Re: MIME-based Secure EDI -- AS1

Hello,

Best regards,

Pae

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Crough" <[email-masked]>
To: "David Fischer" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Ned Freed" <[email-masked]>; "Rik Drummond"
<[email-masked]>

---

From: "Kit (Christopher) Lueder" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 12:08:10 -0500

Hello? As noted below by David Fischer and Pae Choi, EDI-INT is overlapping with
ebXML and SOAP, but it doesn't provide the full functionality of those protocols
(i.e., transport of any XML document, not just EDI.). Given the progress in this
area of these other protocols, the future for EDI-INT is too limited if it is
framed as EDI-only. I don't see the usefulness of moving forward with AS1 if it
isn't made generally applicable to XML documents. I repeat my issue that I
raised on November 26, 2001, but didn't see any response on this:

I propose an enhancement to AS1, to add MIME types of "application/xml" and
"application/octet-stream"? It is a useful enhancement, to make AS1 more
generally applicable.
Kit Lueder
MITRE.

-- 
    _/    _/             Kit C. J. Lueder       
   _/   _/         _/   The MITRE Corp.         Tel:  703-883-5205
  _/_/_/    _/  _/_/_/ 7515 Colshire Dr        Cell: 703-577-2463
 _/   _/   _/    _/   Mailstop W658           FAX:  703-883-3383
_/    _/  _/    _/   McLean, VA 22102-7508   Mail: [email-masked]
Worse than an unanswered question is an unquestioned answer.

---

From: David Fischer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 12:09:33 -0600

Kit,

Yes, the AS1 spec has been extended to include XML and HTTP.  This is AS2.
Since AS2 is an extension to AS1, AS1 must precede AS2 through the standards
process.

It would be impractical to add XML to AS1 at this point, even though XML (or any
other MIME type) would easily work.  The AS1/AS2 specifications are payload
neutral.  However, to add XML to AS1, we would have to modify all the existing
products and retest.  Since this is already accomplished in AS2, why not proceed
with AS1 and immediately follow with AS2 on the standards track.  What you
suggest would then be in the standard.

Your suggestion is quite valid.  It would be better though to proceed through
AS2 rather than hold up AS1 (and thus also hold up AS2).  Your goal will be
realized.

Regards,

David Fischer
Drummond Group.

---

From: "Dick Brooks" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 15:19:56 -0600

David,

>duplication at all but a continuation.

I don't think of the ebXML work as a continuation of AS1, but rather as an
evolutionary
step forward. When I see the word "continuation" I somehow assume that the
later version
is somehow "backward compatible" with previous works. Maybe that's just me,
but I don't think
I'm alone. ebXML's Message Service and AS1 are not compatible, and in
reality share very little.

>The AS1 standard has been in work for

When I think of something as a "standard" I look for broad, public adoption
and a formal "claim" by a Standards making body claiming ownership of the
"standard". Can you provide references to which Standards Making body claims
AS1 as a standard and/or organizations or industry groups that have publicly
announced AS1 as their "standard" for transporting data reliably and
securely via the Internet.

I refer you to section 2.2 of RFC 2026, "The Internet Standards Process --
Revision 3"), regarding the status of Internet Drafts.

  "Internet-Drafts have no formal status, and are
   subject to change or removal at any time.

      ********************************************************
      *                                                      *
      *   Under no circumstances should an Internet-Draft    *
      *   be referenced by any paper, report, or Request-    *
      *   for-Proposal, nor should a vendor claim compliance *
      *   with an Internet-Draft.                            *
      *                                                      *
      ********************************************************"

>of the contributors to all these specifications are the same.

I certainly agree with this sentiment. However I suspect this may not change
the perception
of Pae, Kit and others that AS1/AS2/GISB
EDM/ebXML/SOAP-with-Attachments/HTTPR/BizTalk/DIME/et al, are competing
"options", because they provide similar functionality but are not
interoperable.

I think we will continue to see competing options in the Reliable/Secure
Messaging space, because there are "competing entities" creating
specifications and no apparent desire to consolidate efforts, unfortunately.

Technically speaking, I believe GISB EDM is the only "standard" in the
options I listed above. GISB EDM was created by the Gas Industry Standards
Board, an ANSI accredited Standards Development Organization, and it's use
as a secure, reliable Internet Data Transport (B2B) standard, has been
mandated (by law) by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and several
state Public Utility Commissions.

Dick Brooks
Co-author GISB EDM
Co-author EDIINT AS2
Co-author ebXML Message Service Version 1.0

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of David Fischer
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 8:22 AM
To: Pae Choi; Gary Crough; [email-masked]
Cc: Ned Freed; Rik Drummond
Subject: RE: MIME-based Secure EDI -- AS1

Yes, the latest version is -14.txt.  I sent version 15 to the administrators
yesterday but I received a reply indicating it will not be posted until
after
the new year.  The only change is to the title and the dates.

Many of us are also involved in the ebXML effort.  I am the editor of the
ebXML-Messaging team.  The apparent duplication of effort is actual not a
duplication at all but a continuation.  The AS1 standard has been in work
for
several years but it is only now, after there are several vendors with
products
on the market and an imbedded base of users, that this method is actually
becoming a "standard".  In this case, the paperwork is just now catching up
with
the industry.

In ebXML, the effort is still on paper without implementations.  Some
vendors
are in the process of coding, including some of the vendors on this list.
Instead of being a duplicate effort, one might suggest that the ebXML effort
"grew out of" the AS1/AS2 effort (and other efforts such as RosettaNet).
Many
of the contributors to all these specifications are the same.

Regards,

David Fischer
Drummond Group.

-----Original Message-----

Hello,

Best regards,

Pae

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Crough" <[email-masked]>
To: "David Fischer" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Ned Freed" <[email-masked]>; "Rik Drummond"
<[email-masked]>