From owner-ietf-ediint@imc.org Fri Mar 3 00:29:22 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA07243 for ; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 00:29:21 -0500 (EST) Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA18713 for ietf-ediint-bks; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 20:48:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from zephyr.tedis.com.au ([210.8.50.100]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA18706 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 20:48:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from tedis.com.au ([203.63.175.12]) by zephyr.tedis.com.au (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with ESMTP id AAA8B7; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 15:46:52 +1100 Message-ID: <38BF43DA.24C83BE9@tedis.com.au> Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 12:47:23 +0800 From: "Tim McGrath" Organization: TEDIS Pty Ltd X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rik Drummond CC: ietf-ediint@imc.org Subject: Re: who References: Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------422842684E344C4FA9A19230" Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------422842684E344C4FA9A19230 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit is this group still active? will edi-int be meeting at the adelaide ITEF later this month? Rik Drummond wrote: -- regards tim mcgrath TEDIS fremantle western australia 6160 phone: +618 93352228 fax: +618 93352142 --------------422842684E344C4FA9A19230 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="tmcgrath.vcf" Content-Description: Card for Tim McGrath Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="tmcgrath.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit begin:vcard n:McGrath;Tim tel;pager:australia 016 631 632 tel;cell:041 381 6846 tel;fax:+61893352142 tel;work:+61893352228 x-mozilla-html:FALSE adr:;;;;;; version:2.1 email;internet:tmcgrath@tedis.com.au x-mozilla-cpt:;-4960 fn:tim mcgrath end:vcard --------------422842684E344C4FA9A19230-- From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Sat Mar 4 08:03:58 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA03073 for ; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 08:03:57 -0500 (EST) Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA20492 for ietf-ediint-bks; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 04:15:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailhost.onramp.net (mailhost.onramp.net [199.1.11.3]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA20486 for ; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 04:15:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from thinkpad600e (A201-08.PPP.FTWO.TX.VERIO.NET [206.50.209.72]) by mailhost.onramp.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id GAA29620 for ; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 06:15:54 -0600 (CST) From: "Rik Drummond" To: Subject: status of ebxml work on xml headers Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 06:14:01 -0600 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit We are currently compiling list of headers from different products and standards to see which are necessary in the ebxml headers. we will have a meeting in dallas on april 4-6 to work on these. we intend to author a strawman on the subject by april 15. ediint is leading these effort inside of ietf at the moment in cooperation with iotp. one additional note as2 was submitted to the drafts directory yesterday for you review. hopefully this is close to finished... best regards, rik //////////////////////// Rik Drummond / CEO Drummond Group / v: 817.294.7339 / f: 817.294.7950 / www.drummondgroup.com / //////////////////////// From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Mon Mar 13 15:29:48 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA19092 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 15:29:46 -0500 (EST) Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA21120 for ietf-ediint-bks; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 11:45:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailhost.onramp.net (mailhost.onramp.net [199.1.11.3]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA21116 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 11:45:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from thinkpad600e (A200-43.PPP.FTWO.TX.VERIO.NET [206.50.209.43]) by mailhost.onramp.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA29611; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 13:46:24 -0600 (CST) From: "Rik Drummond" To: Cc: "Dale Moberg" Subject: FW: FW: please post draft to drafts directory Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 13:44:35 -0600 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit We have posted the draft to the IETF... but as you can see they will not post it until after the meeting end of the month. if you wish a copy please contact dale moberg -----Original Message----- From: Internet Draft Submission Manager [mailto:ietfauto@ietf.org] Sent: Monday, March 13, 2000 1:44 PM To: drummond@onramp.net Subject: Re: FW: please post draft to drafts directory Greetings, We are sorry, but the cut-off for Internet-Draft submissions was Friday, March 10 at 5pm ET. Your submission will not be retained (i.e. you need to resubmit) after March 7th. Any submissions received prior to March 26, 2000 will not be retained; they must be resubmitted. Internet-Draft submissions received on or after March 27 will be processed. However, Internet-Draft announcements will not be sent until after the meeting concludes. If you receive this announcement, your submission will NOT be processed. Thank you for your understanding. IETF Secretariat From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Thu Mar 16 09:20:50 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA18771 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 09:20:50 -0500 (EST) Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA06014 for ietf-ediint-bks; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 05:22:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailhost.onramp.net (mailhost.onramp.net [199.1.11.3]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA06009 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 05:22:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from thinkpad600e (A200-45.PPP.FTWO.TX.VERIO.NET [206.50.209.45]) by mailhost.onramp.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id HAA16651 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 07:23:34 -0600 (CST) From: "Rik Drummond" To: Subject: ebxml transport working documents Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 07:20:35 -0600 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit We have a directory of working document that you may access. two of these are documents on our message header investigation.... best regards, rik http://www.ebxml.org/working/project_teams/transport //////////////////////// Rik Drummond / CEO Drummond Group / v: 817.294.7339 / f: 817.294.7950 / www.drummondgroup.com / //////////////////////// From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Fri Mar 17 08:52:01 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA04288 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 08:52:00 -0500 (EST) Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA07923 for ietf-ediint-bks; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 05:00:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailhost.onramp.net (mailhost.onramp.net [199.1.11.3]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA07918 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 05:00:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from thinkpad600e (A200-06.PPP.FTWO.TX.VERIO.NET [206.50.209.6]) by mailhost.onramp.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id HAA28901 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 07:01:44 -0600 (CST) From: "Rik Drummond" To: Subject: ebxml/ietf ediint meeting on ec headers... Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 06:59:44 -0600 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit below in information on the april ebxml/ediint meeting in dallas on april 4-6. we will be establishing the headers and the envelope for the transactions. this joint work effort will solve many of the issues we have discussed for two years on header extensions in the ediint spec. Is see this as a joint effort between ebxml/ediint. this meeting is not being held instead of attending the ietf meeting. i just worked out that it is happing about the same time and even though there is a good cross section of people from ediint and ebxml working this issue, we need to get two documents out asap. ************ The ebXML transport meeting is in Dallas/Fort Worth airport. Date: April 4, 5, 6 Times: 10:00am-5:00pm, 8:00am-6:00pm, 8:00am-3:00pm Hotel: Harvey Hotel Transportation: hotel van Cost of your room at harvey: about $130 Shared Cost for Conference Room: about $1500 Telephone: 972.929.4500 USA The hotel is 1.5 miles from the airport and has van services to the hotel to/from the airport. When you land, go to baggage claim and call the number above and request a hotel van. ************** Just a reminder there is a weekly conference call on thursdays at 11:00 est until 12:30pm. i will be in japan next week. dick brooks will lead the call in my place. Dick Brooks [dick@8760.com] our working documents are at http://www.ebxml.org/working/project_teams/transport the key documents are in the header and packaging folder and the use case folder. looking forward to seeing you there.... best regards, rik chair of ietf ediint and team lead for ebxml transport //////////////////////// Rik Drummond / CEO Drummond Group / v: 817.294.7339 / f: 817.294.7950 / www.drummondgroup.com / //////////////////////// From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Fri Mar 17 19:58:32 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA27473 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 19:58:32 -0500 (EST) Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA25678 for ietf-ediint-bks; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 16:13:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from aurora.rg.iupui.edu (aurora.rg.iupui.edu [134.68.31.122]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA25673 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 16:13:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from aurora.rg.iupui.edu (schadow_g.regenstrief.iupui.edu [134.68.31.121]) by aurora.rg.iupui.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA16790; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 19:14:02 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from gunther@aurora.rg.iupui.edu) Message-ID: <38D2CA65.94F3795E@aurora.rg.iupui.edu> Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 19:14:29 -0500 From: Gunther Schadow Organization: Regenstrief Institute X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rik Drummond CC: ietf-ediint@imc.org Subject: Re: ebxml/ietf ediint meeting on ec headers... References: Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------A10967DEE947238D173B6E6C" Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------A10967DEE947238D173B6E6C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Rik Drummond wrote: > below in information on the april ebxml/ediint meeting in dallas on april > 4-6. we will be establishing the headers and the envelope for the > transactions. this joint work effort will solve many of the issues we have > discussed for two years on header extensions in the ediint spec. Is see this Yes!!! I have to be on that group, although I can not participate in this particular meeting. However ... > Just a reminder there is a weekly conference call on thursdays at 11:00 est > until 12:30pm. What is the number and instructions to dial in? > our working documents are at > http://www.ebxml.org/working/project_teams/transport Will prepare myself for next Thursday. regards -Gunther (of HL7) --------------A10967DEE947238D173B6E6C Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="gunther.vcf" Content-Description: Card for Gunther Schadow Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="gunther.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit begin:vcard n:Schadow;Gunther tel;fax:+1 317 630 6962 tel;home:+1 317 816 0516 tel;work:+1 317 630 7960 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:http://aurora.rg.iupui.edu org:Regenstrief Institute adr:;;1050 Wishard Blvd;Indianapolis;Indiana;46202;USA version:2.1 email;internet:gunther@aurora.rg.iupui.edu title:M.D. fn:Gunther Schadow end:vcard --------------A10967DEE947238D173B6E6C-- From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Sun Mar 19 18:47:58 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA13813 for ; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 18:47:57 -0500 (EST) Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA00777 for ietf-ediint-bks; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 15:01:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from zephyr.tedis.com.au ([210.8.50.100]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA00772 for ; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 15:01:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from tedis.com.au ([210.8.50.215]) by zephyr.tedis.com.au (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with ESMTP id AAA225A; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 10:01:02 +1100 Message-ID: <38D55C3D.4FD3D343@tedis.com.au> Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 07:01:17 +0800 From: "Tim McGrath" Organization: TEDIS Pty Ltd X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rik Drummond CC: ietf-ediint@imc.org Subject: Re: ebxml/ietf ediint meeting on ec headers... References: Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------0D0BADF13CEFC5310515E9F5" Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------0D0BADF13CEFC5310515E9F5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit it is actually being held the week following the IETF meeting. is anyone interested in meeting to discuss this at the IETF meeting? Rik Drummond wrote: > below in information on the april ebxml/ediint meeting in dallas on april > 4-6. we will be establishing the headers and the envelope for the > transactions. this joint work effort will solve many of the issues we have > discussed for two years on header extensions in the ediint spec. Is see this > as a joint effort between ebxml/ediint. this meeting is not being held > instead of attending the ietf meeting. i just worked out that it is happing > about the same time and even though there is a good cross section of people > from ediint and ebxml working this issue, we need to get two documents out > asap. > > ************ > The ebXML transport meeting is in Dallas/Fort Worth airport. > > Date: April 4, 5, 6 > Times: 10:00am-5:00pm, 8:00am-6:00pm, 8:00am-3:00pm > Hotel: Harvey Hotel > Transportation: hotel van > Cost of your room at harvey: about $130 > Shared Cost for Conference Room: about $1500 > Telephone: 972.929.4500 USA > > The hotel is 1.5 miles from the airport and has van services to the hotel > to/from the airport. When you land, go to baggage claim and call the number > above and request a hotel van. > ************** > > Just a reminder there is a weekly conference call on thursdays at 11:00 est > until 12:30pm. i will be in japan next week. dick brooks will lead the call > in my place. Dick Brooks [dick@8760.com] > > our working documents are at > http://www.ebxml.org/working/project_teams/transport > > the key documents are in the header and packaging folder and the use case > folder. > > looking forward to seeing you there.... best regards, > > rik > chair of ietf ediint and team lead for ebxml transport > > //////////////////////// > Rik Drummond / > CEO Drummond Group / > v: 817.294.7339 / > f: 817.294.7950 / > www.drummondgroup.com / > //////////////////////// -- regards tim mcgrath TEDIS fremantle western australia 6160 phone: +618 93352228 fax: +618 93352142 --------------0D0BADF13CEFC5310515E9F5 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="tmcgrath.vcf" Content-Description: Card for Tim McGrath Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="tmcgrath.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit begin:vcard n:McGrath;Tim tel;pager:australia 016 631 632 tel;cell:041 381 6846 tel;fax:+61893352142 tel;work:+61893352228 x-mozilla-html:FALSE adr:;;;;;; version:2.1 email;internet:tmcgrath@tedis.com.au x-mozilla-cpt:;-4960 fn:tim mcgrath end:vcard --------------0D0BADF13CEFC5310515E9F5-- From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Mon Mar 20 00:43:12 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA26285 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 00:43:11 -0500 (EST) Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA17510 for ietf-ediint-bks; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 21:03:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from tomts1-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts1.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.139]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA17506 for ; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 21:03:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from jdmd200 ([206.47.27.8]) by tomts1-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with SMTP id <20000320050446.FXOK912.tomts1-srv.bellnexxia.net@jdmd200> for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 00:04:46 -0500 Message-ID: <001501bf9229$90151b40$081b2fce@adsl.bellglobal.com> From: "J. David MacDonald" To: Subject: HTTP Multipart Response, is this reasonable? Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 00:02:59 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Can someone comment on the use of the following structure for EDI-INT usage. Specifically, is the Multipart/mixed (see below) content-type permissible in EDI-INT. SCENARIO. Client submits a transaction via HTTP. Neither the EDI response transaction nor the MDN response is available immediately (the inbound transaction from the client is queued to a back-end system for processing.) The back-end system decrypts/verifies the inbound transaction and generates an MDN for it. It also forwards the EDI content to an application subsystem for processing. The MDN and eventually the EDI response go out to a queue for pickup by the client. The client signs on an hour later to retrieve the results. Rather than do individual HTTP request/response pairs (one for each transaction sitting in the queue), is it reasonable to do just a single HTTP request, and have the server return as the HTTP response all transactions wrapped in a multipart structure. EDI-INT-AS2-06 alludes to this but comes up short on a specific example: "In general, both HTTP servers and HTTP clients handling the message templates of AS1 should be prepared to process these basic EDIINT data formats when they are embedded within MIME multiparts". EXAMPLE OF THE HTTP MULTIPART RESPONSE: (1st part is the MDN) (2nd part is the EDI) Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 02:41:50 GMT Server: IBM_HTTP_Server/1.3.6.2 Apache/1.3.7-dev (Win32) Pragma: No-cache Cache-Control: no-cache Expires: Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 GMT Connection: close Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Length: 10390 Content-Type: Multipart/mixed; boundary="------------Boundary-EdiAndMdnTransactions" --------------Boundary-EdiAndMdnTransactions Mime-Version: 1.0 From: J. David MacDonald Message-Id: <38D58FE2.000003.02420@jdmd466.adsl.bellglobal.com> Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 21:41:38 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) Content-Type: Application/pkcs7-mime Content-Length: 5194 [encrypted content here] --------------Boundary-EdiAndMdnTransactions Mime-Version: 1.0 From: J. David MacDonald Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 21:41:35 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) Message-Id: <38D58FDE.000002.02160@jdmd466.adsl.bellglobal.com> disposition-notification-options: signed-receipt-protocol=required, pkcs7-signature; signed-receipt-micalg=required, sha1 disposition-notification-to: J. David MacDonald receipt-delivery-option: http://12345OntarioInc.com/UriForAsyncronousMdn Content-Type: Application/pkcs7-mime Content-Length: 4250 [encrypted content here] --------------Boundary-EdiAndMdnTransactions-- Regards, Dave MacDonald E-mail: david.macdonald@sympatico.ca Phone: (613) 825-6183 From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Mon Mar 20 15:32:25 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA19395 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 15:32:24 -0500 (EST) Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA06292 for ietf-ediint-bks; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 11:45:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from rgate2.ricochet.net (rgate2.ricochet.net [204.179.143.3]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA06288 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 11:45:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from sv.chage.com (mg136-031.ricochet.net [204.179.136.31]) by rgate2.ricochet.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA21452; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 13:46:44 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <200003201946.NAA21452@rgate2.ricochet.net> From: "Carl Hage" To: "J. David MacDonald" Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 11:46:24 -0800 Subject: Re: HTTP Multipart Response, is this reasonable? CC: ietf-ediint@imc.org In-reply-to: <001501bf9229$90151b40$081b2fce@adsl.bellglobal.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d) Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: From: "J. David MacDonald" Date sent: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 00:02:59 -0500 A response message and MDN can be combined, but not under this scenario. A client cannot "sign on" later for pickup [except as a POP3 client for SMTP-based delivery]. Transactions are only sent via push technology, i.e. either email to the original sender, or an HTTP post to the orignal sender's http server. (A sender cannot poll the original recipient's http server.) Normally, the MDN response is generated immediately. (Like a P.O. sent by FedEx or certified mail, where a reciept is signed at delivery, not when processed.) A deferred receipt can be prearranged using the "Receipt-delivery-option" header, sent by the client. Normally, a multipart EDI message and MDN is to support real-time EDI systems which can generate a response transaction immediately (within a few seconds). > SCENARIO. > > Client submits a transaction via HTTP. Neither the EDI response > transaction nor the MDN response is available immediately ... > The client signs on an hour later to retrieve the results.Rather than do individual HTTP request/response pairs (one for each transaction sitting in the queue), is it reasonable to do just a single HTTP request, and have the server return as the HTTP response all transactions wrapped in a multipart structure. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carl Hage C. Hage Associates Voice/Fax: 1-408-244-8410 1180 Reed Ave #51 Sunnyvale, CA 94086 From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Mon Mar 20 17:38:12 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA08205 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 17:38:12 -0500 (EST) Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA08064 for ietf-ediint-bks; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 13:44:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from spyglass.cyclonecommerce.com ([12.34.72.100]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA08060 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 13:44:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from gvesper (GVESPER.cyclonecommerce.com [10.2.2.24]) by spyglass.cyclonecommerce.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2448.0) id H1HHDS19; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 14:46:46 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Gregory W. Vesper" To: "Carl Hage" , "J. David MacDonald" Cc: Subject: RE: HTTP Multipart Response, is this reasonable? Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 14:50:28 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <200003201946.NAA21452@rgate2.ricochet.net> Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Please bear in mind, customers who are using HTTP for large files, say in excess of 10MB, will require asynchronous transfer of MDNs as opposed to MDNs on the same connection. Async MDNs allow you to support full EDIINT across any transport. We currently support EDIINT capability over: SMTP, FTP, HTTP, HTTPS, MQSeries. There's no reason MDNs should be hard wired to a specific transport. I agree on support for synchronous MDNs for HTTP(S), so long as async is an option.. Cheers, -Greg. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org > [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org]On Behalf Of Carl Hage > Sent: Monday, March 20, 2000 12:46 PM > To: J. David MacDonald > Cc: ietf-ediint@imc.org > Subject: Re: HTTP Multipart Response, is this reasonable? > > > From: "J. David MacDonald" > Date sent: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 00:02:59 -0500 > > A response message and MDN can be combined, but not under this > scenario. A client cannot "sign on" later for pickup [except as a POP3 > client for SMTP-based delivery]. Transactions are only sent via push > technology, i.e. either email to the original sender, or an HTTP post to > the orignal sender's http server. (A sender cannot poll the original > recipient's http server.) > > Normally, the MDN response is generated immediately. (Like a P.O. > sent by FedEx or certified mail, where a reciept is signed at delivery, > not when processed.) > > A deferred receipt can be prearranged using the > "Receipt-delivery-option" header, sent by the client. > > Normally, a multipart EDI message and MDN is to support real-time > EDI systems which can generate a response transaction immediately > (within a few seconds). > > > SCENARIO. > > > > Client submits a transaction via HTTP. Neither the EDI response > > transaction nor the MDN response is available immediately > ... > > The client signs on an hour later to retrieve the results.Rather than > do individual HTTP request/response pairs (one for each transaction > sitting in the queue), is it reasonable to do just a single HTTP request, > and have the server return as the HTTP response all transactions > wrapped in a multipart structure. > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Carl Hage C. Hage Associates > Voice/Fax: 1-408-244-8410 1180 Reed Ave #51 > Sunnyvale, > CA 94086 From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Mon Mar 20 18:46:36 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA02162 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 18:46:35 -0500 (EST) Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA09519 for ietf-ediint-bks; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 15:09:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from rgate2.ricochet.net (rgate2.ricochet.net [204.179.143.3]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA09515 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 15:09:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from sv.chage.com (mg136-031.ricochet.net [204.179.136.31]) by rgate2.ricochet.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA26668; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 17:10:55 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <200003202310.RAA26668@rgate2.ricochet.net> From: "Carl Hage" To: gvesper@cyclonecommerce.com Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 15:10:34 -0800 Subject: RE: HTTP Multipart Response, is this reasonable? CC: In-reply-to: References: <200003201946.NAA21452@rgate2.ricochet.net> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d) Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: From: "Gregory W. Vesper" Date sent: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 14:50:28 -0700 > Please bear in mind, customers who are using HTTP for large files, say in > excess of 10MB, will require asynchronous transfer of MDNs as opposed to > MDNs on the same connection. Why would the message size affect use of async vs sync (in the http post reply) MDNs? (I assume the MDN wouldn't include a copy of the original-- just the MIC) It seems to me that separate transmission of an MDN would be mainly needed if a forwarding gateway was involved, and final delivery can't be confirmed until the forwarding is completed. Note the way I read the spec, the choice of reply method is determined by the sender not the recipient. Did I miss something, or would there be a problem using HTTP if the sender requested an MDN using the 'default' method, but the http is a forwarding agent and can't issue immediate replies? -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carl Hage C. Hage Associates Voice/Fax: 1-408-244-8410 1180 Reed Ave #51 Sunnyvale, CA 94086 From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Mon Mar 20 19:02:38 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA07614 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 19:02:37 -0500 (EST) Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA09803 for ietf-ediint-bks; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 15:26:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from spyglass.cyclonecommerce.com ([12.34.72.100]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA09799 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 15:26:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from gvesper (GVESPER.cyclonecommerce.com [10.2.2.24]) by spyglass.cyclonecommerce.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2448.0) id H1HHDSJY; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 16:28:58 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Gregory W. Vesper" To: "Carl Hage" Cc: Subject: RE: HTTP Multipart Response, is this reasonable? Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 16:32:41 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <200003202310.RAA26668@rgate2.ricochet.net> Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Why would the message size affect use of async vs sync (in the http > post reply) MDNs? For a 10+MB file, by the time you decrypt, validate signatures, and generate the MDN, you may have timed out your HTTP connection. > (I assume the MDN wouldn't include a copy of the original-- just the > MIC) The MDN would be the the same as AS1 MDNs. > It seems to me that separate transmission of an MDN would be mainly > needed if a forwarding gateway was involved, and final delivery can't be > confirmed until the forwarding is completed. That's another potential scenario yes, but I think the response timeout scenario will be more common. > Note the way I read the spec, the choice of reply method is determined > by the sender not the recipient. Did I miss something, or would there > be a problem using HTTP if the sender requested an MDN using the > 'default' method, but the http is a forwarding agent and can't issue > immediate replies? The MDN reply method is determined by the sender - I suppose this could be made a suggestion rather than a mandate with a fallback to a default behaviour. Inasmuch as current EDIINT MDNs are async over SMTP, this might be a nice default. Cheers, -Greg. From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Tue Mar 21 23:10:56 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA08332 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 23:10:56 -0500 (EST) Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA15354 for ietf-ediint-bks; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 18:52:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp11.bellglobal.com (smtp11.bellglobal.com [204.101.251.53]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA15348 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 18:52:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from jdmd200 (cpu1527.adsl.bellglobal.com [206.47.27.8]) by smtp11.bellglobal.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA08599; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 22:00:03 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001001bf93a9$b408e0a0$081b2fce@adsl.bellglobal.com> From: "J. David MacDonald" To: "Carl Hage" Cc: References: <200003201946.NAA21452@rgate2.ricochet.net> Subject: Re: HTTP Multipart Response, is this reasonable? Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 21:52:45 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Perhaps I phrased the scenario incorrectly and made it too complex for what I'm trying to determine. Lets set aside the MDN issue for now. MODIFIED SCENARIO. Client submits a 2 EDI transactions via HTTP. The EDI response is not available immediately. Client submits another transaction an hour later (I originally referred to this as a sign-on ie. the client establishes an HTTP sesson, POSTs an EDI-INT transaction, waits for a response...). By this time, the EDI responses from the 1st transmission are available and are sent back in the HTTP response in a multipart format. Acceptable? > > A response message and MDN can be combined, but not under this > scenario. Under what scenario is this permissible: only real-time? > A client cannot "sign on" later for pickup [except as a POP3 > client for SMTP-based delivery]. Transactions are only sent via push > technology, i.e. either email to the original sender, or an HTTP post to > the original sender's http server. (A sender cannot poll the original > recipient's http server.) This would be an unnecessary burder to smaller clients who wish to communicate via HTTP over dial-up. It assumes that all clients set up an HTTP server infrastructure, dedicated connections, etc. EDI-INT is supposed to be protocol-neutral (as much as possible). The statement infers that there is one set of rules/techniques for SMTP and another for HTTP. Was this intended? Shouldn't a HTTP Request/Response session be similar to an SMTP/POP3 Send/Receive session to achieve that neutrality? After a re-read of the specification, I cannot locate any references that state that if I want to return an EDI response to the client via HTTP, then I must POST it the client's server. I do see many references (albeit, most of them real-time oriented) where it does seem to be acceptable to return an EDI response as a part of the HTTP response. Does this mean: one set of rules for real-time and yet another (or worse, set up a separate technology infrastructure to implement another protocol) for deferred processing? Dave From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Wed Mar 22 15:53:03 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA25809 for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 15:53:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA25152 for ietf-ediint-bks; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 11:53:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from rgate2.ricochet.net (rgate2.ricochet.net [204.179.143.3]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA25148 for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 11:53:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from sv.chage.com (mg-20425426-193.ricochet.net [204.254.26.193]) by rgate2.ricochet.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA11431; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 13:54:48 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <200003221954.NAA11431@rgate2.ricochet.net> From: "Carl Hage" To: "J. David MacDonald" Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 11:54:26 -0800 Subject: Re: HTTP Multipart Response, is this reasonable? CC: In-reply-to: <001001bf93a9$b408e0a0$081b2fce@adsl.bellglobal.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d) Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: From: "J. David MacDonald" Date sent: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 21:52:45 -0500 > Client submits another transaction an hour later (I originally referred to > this as a sign-on ie. the client establishes an HTTP sesson, POSTs an > EDI-INT transaction, waits for a response...). By this time, the EDI > responses from the 1st transmission are available and are sent back in the > HTTP response in a multipart format. Acceptable? Normally, a transaction is sent immediately when generated, not queued for possible attachment to some other response. (The spec doesn't prohibit this, but it would make no sense.) Trading partners using the HTTP method must both have http servers, not just clients. Transactions are always pushed from the sender to the recipient's http server, with the exception that an immediate reply could be returned as a response to the post operation. I suppose it would be possible for one trading partner to use http and one to use smtp. (It doesn't make much sense, though since it's simpler to just support SMTP-only.) The sender of an http posted transaction specifies how the MDN is returned, one of 3 ways: 1. In the http post response 2. Deferred, via http 3. Deferred, via SMTP The recipient's http server must support all methods unless there is a specific agreement on a subset. > > A response message and MDN can be combined, but not under this > > scenario. > Under what scenario is this permissible: only real-time? A deferred MDN could be combined with a response EDI transaction posted to the sender's http server, provided the sender specified the MDN to be returned separately to the http URL, same as the URL to receive transactions. The real-time scenario is also possible. ... > This would be an unnecessary burder to smaller clients who wish to > communicate via HTTP over dial-up. It assumes that all clients set up an > HTTP server infrastructure, dedicated connections, etc. Clients with dialup should use the SMTP method. SMTP (ASN1) supports real-time direct EDI almost equivalent to HTTP as well as supporting store-and-forward messaging. > EDI-INT is supposed to be protocol-neutral (as much as possible). The > statement infers that there is one set of rules/techniques for SMTP and > another for HTTP. Was this intended? Shouldn't a HTTP Request/Response > session be similar to an SMTP/POP3 Send/Receive session to achieve that > neutrality? There is no HTTP/POP3, unless a special gateway is implemented. If it were truely comparable, then the MDN would always be sent in a separate message to the senders http server. However, the http post requires a reply, and in most cases it's most efficient to return the reciept in the reponse. Allowing deferred receipts actually makes the HTTP method much more complex. The SMTP method was used in EDIINT AS1 because it is universal. My own personal opinion is that an http method is unnecessary and undesirable-- but lots of people disagree with that (no need to argue). [Note that in the case of POP3, the recipient's server (ISP) does the queuing, whereas in the case of polled http, it's the sender's system that would be doing the queuing. The EDIINT specs don't use a queuing except as part of retry of a failed transmission.] > After a re-read of the specification, I cannot locate any references that > state that if I want to return an EDI response to the client via HTTP, > then I must POST it the client's server. There is no explicit prohibition, however, the recipient MAY post a transaction so the sender MUST have an http server. [Unless the weird http/smtp combo is used.] I do see many references > (albeit, most of them real-time oriented) where it does seem to be > acceptable to return an EDI response as a part of the HTTP response. Does > this mean: one set of rules for real-time and yet another (or worse, set > up a separate technology infrastructure to implement another protocol) for > deferred processing? Actually, this is the case for http. The normal case is to have transactions immediately confirmed with a receipt. A full implementation would require the response method to be checked and then all three ways would need to be supported, with slightly different infrastructure. It might be the case that a trading partner agreement would prohibit certain cases in order to simplify the software. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carl Hage C. Hage Associates Voice/Fax: 1-408-244-8410 1180 Reed Ave #51 Sunnyvale, CA 94086 From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Thu Mar 23 08:57:00 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA12307 for ; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 08:56:59 -0500 (EST) Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA09266 for ietf-ediint-bks; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 05:12:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from hotmail.com (law2-f178.hotmail.com [216.32.181.178]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id FAA09262 for ; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 05:12:06 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 39079 invoked by uid 0); 23 Mar 2000 13:13:33 -0000 Message-ID: <20000323131333.39078.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 143.129.88.57 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 05:13:33 PST X-Originating-IP: [143.129.88.57] From: "Thierry Lesneuck" To: ietf-ediint@imc.org Subject: question Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 13:13:33 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Hello, My name is Thierry, I am a Belgian student. I have read your draft 'requirements for Inter-operable Internet EDI'. This draft proposes how to use the Internet as a platform for EDI. Although I think the draft was very intersting, my question is: Do you think companies will consider sending EDI over the Internet, using HTML (and S-MIME), now that XML exist? In other words don't you think XML is more approriate to use for Internet-EDI. I hope yoy will respond to my question so I can understand more of Internet-EDI. If You also have interesting drafts on this subject please let me know Thank You, Thierry ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Thu Mar 23 10:53:55 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA25965 for ; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 10:53:55 -0500 (EST) Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA11239 for ietf-ediint-bks; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 07:03:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailman.8760.com (portal.8760.com [209.149.125.2]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA11235 for ; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 07:03:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by mailman.8760.com from localhost (router,SLMail V3.2); Thu, 23 Mar 2000 09:03:17 -0600 Received: from gamma [192.168.21.133] by mailman.8760.com [192.168.21.90] (SLmail 3.2.3113) with SMTP id 9BD5D885FC6611D3BB040060974E38DD for plus 1 more; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 09:03:17 -0600 From: "Dick Brooks (D)" To: "Thierry Lesneuck" , Subject: RE: question Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 09:00:46 -0600 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <20000323131333.39078.qmail@hotmail.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-SLUIDL: FC71A6ED-FC6511D3-BB040060-974E38DD Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thierry, EDIINT is attempting to provide a payload "agnostic" transport mechansim. If a company wants a reliable, secure way to send EDIFACT, X12, XML, jpeg images, whatever, they should use EDIINT. Dick Brooks http://www.8760.com/ -----Original Message----- From: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org]On Behalf Of Thierry Lesneuck Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2000 7:14 AM To: ietf-ediint@imc.org Subject: question Hello, My name is Thierry, I am a Belgian student. I have read your draft 'requirements for Inter-operable Internet EDI'. This draft proposes how to use the Internet as a platform for EDI. Although I think the draft was very intersting, my question is: Do you think companies will consider sending EDI over the Internet, using HTML (and S-MIME), now that XML exist? In other words don't you think XML is more approriate to use for Internet-EDI. I hope yoy will respond to my question so I can understand more of Internet-EDI. If You also have interesting drafts on this subject please let me know Thank You, Thierry ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com