From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Fri Jan 9 10:33:20 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA05097 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:33:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i07Lltib075427 for ; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 13:47:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id i07Lltst075426 for ietf-ediint-bks; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 13:47:55 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from spyglass.cyclonecommerce.com (spyglass.cyclonecommerce.com [216.138.89.24]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i07Llrib075420 for ; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 13:47:53 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com) Received: from usazscsmh1.cyclonecommerce.com [10.1.0.24] by spyglass.cyclonecommerce.com with XWall v3.28 ; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 14:47:50 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.6944.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a RFC... MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C3D567.E4CA3448" Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 14:47:49 -0700 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a RFC... Thread-Index: AcPU61JRuzx9/PX0T2C91EiRQby5kAAeb/9gAACfVFA= From: "Dale Moberg" To: "Kyle Meadors" , "Rik Drummond" , Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3D567.E4CA3448 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Kyle, =20 If we reference the draft-ietf-compression-XX.txt document, will we have to wait on it to become a RFC? =20 I seem to recall that IDs can be held up waiting for referenced drafts becoming RFCs-- Rik, do you remember the rule? =20 Anyway, I would prefer not to make the AS2 ID wait for the compression draft. =20 Dale Moberg -----Original Message----- From: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org] On Behalf Of Kyle Meadors Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 2:30 PM To: Rik Drummond; ietf-ediint@imc.org Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a RFC... Importance: Low =09 =09 The AS2 draft vs. 14 doesn't reference the draft-ietf-compression-XX.txt document. It probably should be added in section 6.1 of the AS2 draft in talking about AS2-Version 1.1 and compression, and then added in 11.0 in the References section. =20 Kyle Meadors Drummond Group Inc. =20 =09 ________________________________ From: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org] On Behalf Of Rik Drummond Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 12:45 AM To: ietf-ediint@imc.org Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a RFC... =20 thanks... any more? -----Original Message----- From: Shan Harter [mailto:shan@systrends.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 12:29 AM To: 'Rik Drummond'; ietf-ediint@imc.org Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a RFC... Perhaps a clarification for the following? =20 1. "AS2-Version: 1.1 - Designates those implementations which support Compression as defined by RFC 3274." =20 2. The draft draft-ietf-ediint-as2-14.txt does not reference draft-ietf-ediint-compression-03.txt.=20 =20 3. draft-ietf-ediint-compression-03.txt does not reference RFC 3274. =20 4. draft-ietf-ediint-as2-14.txt does reference RFC 3274 for compression. =20 =20 -----Original Message----- From: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org]On Behalf Of Rik Drummond Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 10:26 PM To: ietf-ediint@imc.org Subject: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a RFC... .. are there any more comments on it before we do a last call on this list? =20 Rik Drummond, Chair EDIINT WG ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3D567.E4CA3448 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message=
Kyle,
 
If we=20 reference the draft-ietf-compression-XX.txt = document, will=20 we have to wait on it to become a RFC?
 
I seem=20 to recall that IDs can be held up waiting for referenced drafts becoming = RFCs--=20 Rik, do you remember the rule?
 
Anyway, I would prefer not to make the AS2 ID wait for the = compression=20 draft.
 
Dale=20 Moberg
-----Original Message-----
From:=20 owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org] = On=20 Behalf Of Kyle Meadors
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 = 2:30=20 PM
To: Rik Drummond; ietf-ediint@imc.org
Subject: = RE: I=20 believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a=20 RFC...
Importance: Low

The AS2 = draft vs. 14=20 doesn’t reference the draft-ietf-compression-XX.txt document. It = probably=20 should be added in section 6.1 of the AS2 draft in talking about = AS2-Version=20 1.1 and compression, and then added in 11.0 in the References=20 section.

 

Kyle=20 Meadors

Drummond = Group=20 Inc.

 

From:=20 owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org] = On Behalf Of Rik=20 Drummond
Sent: = Wednesday,=20 January 07, 2004 12:45 AM
To:=20 ietf-ediint@imc.org
Subject:=20 RE: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a=20 RFC...

 

thanks... = any=20 more?

-----Original=20 Message-----
From: Shan=20 Harter [mailto:shan@systrends.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, = 2004 12:29=20 AM
To: 'Rik = Drummond';=20 ietf-ediint@imc.org
Subject: RE: I believe that = AS2 is now=20 ready to be submitted to IETF as a = RFC...

Perhaps a = clarification for the following?

 

1. = "AS2-Version:=20 1.1 - Designates those implementations which support Compression as = defined=20 by RFC 3274."

 

2. The = draft=20 draft-ietf-ediint-as2-14.txt does not reference=20 draft-ietf-ediint-compression-03.txt. =

 

3.=20 draft-ietf-ediint-compression-03.txt does not reference RFC=20 3274.

 

4.=20 draft-ietf-ediint-as2-14.txt does reference RFC 3274 for=20 compression.

 

 

-----Original=20 Message-----
From:=20 owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org=20 [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org]On Behalf Of Rik = Drummond
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, = 2004 10:26=20 PM
To:=20 ietf-ediint@imc.org
Subject: I believe that AS2 = is now=20 ready to be submitted to IETF as a = RFC...

.. are there any = more comments=20 on it before we do a last call on this=20 list?

 

Rik Drummond, Chair = EDIINT=20 = WG

=00 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3D567.E4CA3448-- From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Fri Jan 9 10:33:22 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA05134 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:33:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i07LUlib074515 for ; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 13:30:47 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id i07LUlKD074514 for ietf-ediint-bks; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 13:30:47 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from drummondgroup.com (drummondgroup.com [161.58.166.198]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i07LUjib074509 for ; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 13:30:45 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kyle@drummondgroup.com) Received: from KYLEDGILAPTOP (pcp01755874pcs.nash01.tn.comcast.net [68.52.238.39]) by drummondgroup.com (8.12.10/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i07LUUBi035665; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 14:30:38 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <200401072130.i07LUUBi035665@drummondgroup.com> From: "Kyle Meadors" To: "'Rik Drummond'" , Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a RFC... Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 15:30:28 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00F4_01C3D533.33A0CB10" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: <000301c3d4e9$c995ebe0$92d1bd44@RIKBIG> Thread-Index: AcPU61JRuzx9/PX0T2C91EiRQby5kAAeb/9g Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00F4_01C3D533.33A0CB10 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The AS2 draft vs. 14 doesn't reference the draft-ietf-compression-XX.txt document. It probably should be added in section 6.1 of the AS2 draft in talking about AS2-Version 1.1 and compression, and then added in 11.0 in the References section. Kyle Meadors Drummond Group Inc. _____ From: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org] On Behalf Of Rik Drummond Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 12:45 AM To: ietf-ediint@imc.org Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a RFC... thanks... any more? -----Original Message----- From: Shan Harter [mailto:shan@systrends.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 12:29 AM To: 'Rik Drummond'; ietf-ediint@imc.org Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a RFC... Perhaps a clarification for the following? 1. "AS2-Version: 1.1 - Designates those implementations which support Compression as defined by RFC 3274." 2. The draft draft-ietf-ediint-as2-14.txt does not reference draft-ietf-ediint-compression-03.txt. 3. draft-ietf-ediint-compression-03.txt does not reference RFC 3274. 4. draft-ietf-ediint-as2-14.txt does reference RFC 3274 for compression. -----Original Message----- From: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org]On Behalf Of Rik Drummond Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 10:26 PM To: ietf-ediint@imc.org Subject: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a RFC... .. are there any more comments on it before we do a last call on this list? Rik Drummond, Chair EDIINT WG ------=_NextPart_000_00F4_01C3D533.33A0CB10 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message

The AS2 draft vs. 14 doesn’t reference the draft-ietf-compression-XX.txt document. It probably should = be added in section 6.1 of the AS2 draft in talking about AS2-Version 1.1 = and compression, and then added in 11.0 in the References = section.

 

Kyle Meadors

Drummond Group = Inc.

 

From: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org] = On Behalf Of Rik Drummond
Sent: Wednesday, January = 07, 2004 12:45 AM
To: = ietf-ediint@imc.org
Subject: RE: I believe = that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a = RFC...

 

thanks... any = more?

-----Original = Message-----
From: Shan Harter [mailto:shan@systrends.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January = 07, 2004 12:29 AM
To: 'Rik Drummond'; ietf-ediint@imc.org
Subject: RE: I believe = that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a = RFC...

Perhaps a clarification for the = following?

 

1. "AS2-Version: 1.1 - = Designates those implementations which support Compression as defined by RFC = 3274."

 

2. The draft = draft-ietf-ediint-as2-14.txt does not reference draft-ietf-ediint-compression-03.txt. =

 

3. = draft-ietf-ediint-compression-03.txt does not reference RFC 3274.

 

4. draft-ietf-ediint-as2-14.txt = does reference RFC 3274 for compression.

 

 

-----Original = Message-----
From: = owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org]On Behalf Of Rik Drummond
Sent: Tuesday, January = 06, 2004 10:26 PM
To: = ietf-ediint@imc.org
Subject: I believe that = AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a RFC...

.. are there any more comments on it before we do a = last call on this list?

 

Rik Drummond, Chair EDIINT = WG

------=_NextPart_000_00F4_01C3D533.33A0CB10-- From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Fri Jan 9 10:33:32 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA05247 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:33:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i07JsWib070118 for ; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 11:54:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id i07JsWp5070116 for ietf-ediint-bks; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 11:54:32 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from fed1mtao04.cox.net (fed1mtao04.cox.net [68.6.19.241]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i07JsUib070109 for ; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 11:54:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tharding@cyclonecommerce.com) Received: from thardinga30 ([68.104.223.174]) by fed1mtao04.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.05 201-253-122-130-105-20030824) with SMTP id <20040107195428.JSDM3905.fed1mtao04.cox.net@thardinga30>; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 14:54:28 -0500 Message-ID: <012501c3d558$0cff92a0$07fea8c0@cyclonecommerce.com> From: "Terry Harding" To: , "Rik Drummond" , References: <000401c3d4e7$82cbbcf0$6405a8c0@syscorp.systrends.com> Subject: Re: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a RFC... Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 12:54:24 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0122_01C3D51D.607A6DF0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0122_01C3D51D.607A6DF0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message3. draft-ietf-ediint-compression-03.txt does not reference RFC = 3274. A new draft has been submitted to the EDIINT working group, which now = references RFC 3274 and the latest AS2 draft. draft-ietf-ediint-compression-04.txt and expires July 2004. Terry Harding Cyclone Commerce ------=_NextPart_000_0122_01C3D51D.607A6DF0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
3.=20 draft-ietf-ediint-compression-03.txt does not reference RFC=20 3274.
 
 
A new=20 draft has been submitted to the EDIINT working group, which now = references RFC=20 3274 and
the=20 latest AS2 draft.
 
 
draft-ietf-ediint-compression-04.txt and expires July=20 2004.
 
 
Terry=20 Harding
Cyclone Commerce
------=_NextPart_000_0122_01C3D51D.607A6DF0-- From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Fri Jan 9 10:33:35 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA05296 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:33:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i07GXwib058186 for ; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 08:33:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id i07GXvX7058185 for ietf-ediint-bks; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 08:33:58 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from spyglass.cyclonecommerce.com (spyglass.cyclonecommerce.com [216.138.89.24]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i07GXsib058176 for ; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 08:33:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rscott@cyclonecommerce.com) Received: from host-209-214-120-20.bna.bellsouth.net [209.214.120.20] by spyglass.cyclonecommerce.com with XWall v3.28 ; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 09:33:47 -0700 Message-ID: <3FFC34DE.37039375@cyclonecommerce.com> Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 10:33:34 -0600 From: Richard Scott X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.9-34 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nicolas Bielza CC: Rik Drummond , "ietf-ediint@imc.org" Subject: Re: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a RFC... References: <000a01c3d531$6e02fff0$3c00a8c0@alligacom.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------CADADACBC3E4AFB25D9FF01F" Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: --------------CADADACBC3E4AFB25D9FF01F Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --------------CADADACBC3E4AFB25D9FF01F Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello, Nicolas.

The changes you noted were made after a review of the previous draft revealed that the unintentional changes had been introduced which made it inconsistent with RFC 3335 ("as1").  That,  as I believe you will agree,  would not be a good thing; hence the updated text again brings them into synchrony.

Note that the signed-receipt-micalg parameter is still honored for signed messages:  the "algorithm used to calculate the MIC" refers to the digest returned inside the signed MDN as the "received-content-MIC", which may be different from the algorithm used to sign the MDN itself.  The signed-receipt-micalg parameter refers to the algorithm used to sign the MDN.

For an unsigned message that requested a signed MDN, a digest will be computed using SHA-1 and returned as the "received-content-MIC".

In either of the above cases where a signed MDN is requested, the MDN is signed using the algorithm specified in the signed-receipt-micalg parameter in the disposition-notification-options  header (left-to-right precedence if  more than one algorithm specified) , or SHA1 if not specified.

Hope that clarification resolves the issue to your satisfaction.

Regards,
Richard
 

Nicolas Bielza wrote:

 in draft-ietf-ediint-as2-14.txt, section 7.4.3: For signed messages, the algorith used to calculate the
MIC MUST be the same as the algorithm that was used on the
message that was signed. Then if the message is signed, the signed-receipt-micalg parameter is not taken into account;But the draft continues with:If the message is not signed, then
the SHA-1 algorithm should be used. So the signed-receipt-micalg parameter is never taken into account ? (And there's no way of requesting a MD5 MIC for an unsigned message).
 
--------------CADADACBC3E4AFB25D9FF01F-- From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Fri Jan 9 10:33:38 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA05317 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:33:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i07FI5ib053932 for ; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 07:18:05 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id i07FI5Nx053931 for ietf-ediint-bks; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 07:18:05 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from faramir.alligacom.com (faramir.alligacom.com [205.205.29.10]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i07FI1ib053910 for ; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 07:18:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nicolas.bielza@alligacom.com) Received: from alliga05 (unknown [192.168.0.60]) by faramir.alligacom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DDD16ABC7; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 10:17:57 -0500 (EST) From: "Nicolas Bielza" To: "'Rik Drummond'" , Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a RFC... Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 10:17:57 -0500 Message-ID: <000a01c3d531$6e02fff0$3c00a8c0@alligacom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000B_01C3D507.852E7E90" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2616 In-Reply-To: <000301c3d4e9$c995ebe0$92d1bd44@RIKBIG> X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C3D507.852E7E90 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit in draft-ietf-ediint-as2-14.txt, section 7.4.3: For signed messages, the algorith used to calculate the MIC MUST be the same as the algorithm that was used on the message that was signed. Then if the message is signed, the signed-receipt-micalg parameter is not taken into account; But the draft continues with: If the message is not signed, then the SHA-1 algorithm should be used. So the signed-receipt-micalg parameter is never taken into account ? (And there's no way of requesting a MD5 MIC for an unsigned message). -----Original Message----- From: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org] On Behalf Of Rik Drummond Sent: 7 janvier, 2004 01:45 To: ietf-ediint@imc.org Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a RFC... thanks... any more? -----Original Message----- From: Shan Harter [mailto:shan@systrends.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 12:29 AM To: 'Rik Drummond'; ietf-ediint@imc.org Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a RFC... Perhaps a clarification for the following? 1. "AS2-Version: 1.1 - Designates those implementations which support Compression as defined by RFC 3274." 2. The draft draft-ietf-ediint-as2-14.txt does not reference draft-ietf-ediint-compression-03.txt. 3. draft-ietf-ediint-compression-03.txt does not reference RFC 3274. 4. draft-ietf-ediint-as2-14.txt does reference RFC 3274 for compression. -----Original Message----- From: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org]On Behalf Of Rik Drummond Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 10:26 PM To: ietf-ediint@imc.org Subject: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a RFC... .. are there any more comments on it before we do a last call on this list? Rik Drummond, Chair EDIINT WG ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C3D507.852E7E90 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
in draft-ietf-ediint-as2-14.txt, section = 7.4.3:
 
For signed = messages, the algorith=20 used to calculate the
MIC MUST be the same as the algorithm that was = used on=20 the
message that was signed.
 
Then=20 if the message is signed, the signed-receipt-micalg parameter is not = taken into=20 account;
But=20 the draft continues with:
 
If the message is = not signed,=20 then
the SHA-1 algorithm should be used.
 
So the=20 signed-receipt-micalg parameter is never taken into account ? (And = there's no=20 way of requesting a MD5 MIC for an unsigned = message).
 
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From:=20 owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org] = On=20 Behalf Of Rik Drummond
Sent: 7 janvier, 2004 = 01:45
To:=20 ietf-ediint@imc.org
Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is now = ready to=20 be submitted to IETF as a RFC...

thanks... any more?
-----Original Message-----
From: = Shan Harter=20 [mailto:shan@systrends.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, = 2004=20 12:29 AM
To: 'Rik Drummond';=20 ietf-ediint@imc.org
Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is now = ready=20 to be submitted to IETF as a RFC...

Perhaps a clarification for the = following?
 
1.=20 "AS2-Version: 1.1 - Designates those implementations which support=20 Compression as defined by RFC 3274."
 
2.=20 The draft draft-ietf-ediint-as2-14.txt does not reference=20 draft-ietf-ediint-compression-03.txt.
 
3.=20 draft-ietf-ediint-compression-03.txt does not reference RFC=20 3274.
 
4.=20 draft-ietf-ediint-as2-14.txt does reference RFC 3274 for=20 compression.
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From:=20 owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org=20 [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org]On Behalf Of Rik=20 Drummond
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 10:26 = PM
To:=20 ietf-ediint@imc.org
Subject: I believe that AS2 is now = ready to=20 be submitted to IETF as a RFC...

.. are there=20 any more comments on it before we do a last call on this=20 list?
 
Rik Drummond,=20 Chair EDIINT=20 WG
------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C3D507.852E7E90-- From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Fri Jan 9 10:33:28 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA05147 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:33:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i07KsLib072586 for ; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 12:54:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id i07KsLHu072585 for ietf-ediint-bks; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 12:54:21 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from drummondgroup.com (drummondgroup.com [161.58.166.198]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i07KsJib072578 for ; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 12:54:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rvd2@drummondgroup.com) Received: from RIKBIG (68.189.209.146.sbi.ftwrth.tx.charter.com [68.189.209.146]) by drummondgroup.com (8.12.10/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i07KsIb9026741; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 13:54:19 -0700 (MST) From: "Rik Drummond" To: "'Nicolas Bielza'" , Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a RFC... Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 14:55:07 -0600 Organization: Drummond Group Inc Message-ID: <003601c3d560$8c16ff80$92d1bd44@RIKBIG> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0037_01C3D52E.417C8F80" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: <000a01c3d531$6e02fff0$3c00a8c0@alligacom.com> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0037_01C3D52E.417C8F80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable great comments everyone... we are very close it seems -----Original Message----- From: Nicolas Bielza [mailto:nicolas.bielza@alligacom.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 9:18 AM To: 'Rik Drummond'; ietf-ediint@imc.org Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as = a RFC... in draft-ietf-ediint-as2-14.txt, section 7.4.3: =20 For signed messages, the algorith used to calculate the MIC MUST be the same as the algorithm that was used on the message that was signed. =20 Then if the message is signed, the signed-receipt-micalg parameter is = not taken into account; But the draft continues with: =20 If the message is not signed, then the SHA-1 algorithm should be used. =20 So the signed-receipt-micalg parameter is never taken into account ? = (And there's no way of requesting a MD5 MIC for an unsigned message). =20 =20 =20 =20 -----Original Message----- From: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org = [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org] On Behalf Of Rik Drummond Sent: 7 janvier, 2004 01:45 To: ietf-ediint@imc.org Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as = a RFC... thanks... any more? -----Original Message----- From: Shan Harter [mailto:shan@systrends.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 12:29 AM To: 'Rik Drummond'; ietf-ediint@imc.org Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as = a RFC... Perhaps a clarification for the following? =20 1. "AS2-Version: 1.1 - Designates those implementations which support Compression as defined by RFC 3274." =20 2. The draft draft-ietf-ediint-as2-14.txt does not reference draft-ietf-ediint-compression-03.txt.=20 =20 3. draft-ietf-ediint-compression-03.txt does not reference RFC 3274. =20 4. draft-ietf-ediint-as2-14.txt does reference RFC 3274 for compression. =20 =20 -----Original Message----- From: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org]On Behalf Of Rik Drummond Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 10:26 PM To: ietf-ediint@imc.org Subject: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a = RFC... .. are there any more comments on it before we do a last call on this = list? =20 Rik Drummond, Chair EDIINT WG ------=_NextPart_000_0037_01C3D52E.417C8F80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
great=20 comments everyone... we are very close it seems
-----Original Message-----
From: = Nicolas Bielza=20 [mailto:nicolas.bielza@alligacom.com]
Sent: Wednesday, = January 07,=20 2004 9:18 AM
To: 'Rik Drummond';=20 ietf-ediint@imc.org
Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is now = ready to=20 be submitted to IETF as a RFC...

in draft-ietf-ediint-as2-14.txt, section = 7.4.3:
 
For signed = messages, the=20 algorith used to calculate the
MIC MUST be the same as the = algorithm that=20 was used on the
message that was signed.
 
Then=20 if the message is signed, the signed-receipt-micalg parameter is not = taken=20 into account;
But=20 the draft continues with:
 
If the message is = not signed,=20 then
the SHA-1 algorithm should be used.
 
So=20 the signed-receipt-micalg parameter is never taken into account ? (And = there's=20 no way of requesting a MD5 MIC for an unsigned = message).
 
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From:=20 owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org = [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org] On=20 Behalf Of Rik Drummond
Sent: 7 janvier, 2004=20 01:45
To: ietf-ediint@imc.org
Subject: RE: I = believe=20 that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a=20 RFC...

thanks... any more?
-----Original Message-----
From: = Shan Harter=20 [mailto:shan@systrends.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January = 07, 2004=20 12:29 AM
To: 'Rik Drummond';=20 ietf-ediint@imc.org
Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is = now ready=20 to be submitted to IETF as a RFC...

Perhaps a clarification for the = following?
 
1. "AS2-Version: 1.1 - Designates those implementations = which=20 support Compression as defined by RFC 3274."
 
2. The draft draft-ietf-ediint-as2-14.txt does not = reference=20 draft-ietf-ediint-compression-03.txt.
 
3. draft-ietf-ediint-compression-03.txt does not = reference RFC=20 3274.
 
4. draft-ietf-ediint-as2-14.txt does reference RFC 3274 = for=20 compression.
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From:=20 owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org=20 [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org]On Behalf Of Rik=20 Drummond
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 10:26=20 PM
To: ietf-ediint@imc.org
Subject: I = believe that=20 AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a=20 RFC...

.. are there=20 any more comments on it before we do a last call on this=20 list?
 
Rik=20 Drummond, Chair EDIINT=20 = WG
------=_NextPart_000_0037_01C3D52E.417C8F80-- From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Fri Jan 9 10:42:38 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA07150 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:42:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i076Spib060978 for ; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 22:28:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id i076SpKS060976 for ietf-ediint-bks; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 22:28:51 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtpred (host7.systrends.com [65.244.195.7] (may be forged)) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i076Snib060954 for ; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 22:28:50 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from shan@systrends.com) Received: from law2kn017 ([68.2.109.62]) by smtpred with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Tue, 6 Jan 2004 23:23:28 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Shan Harter" To: "'Rik Drummond'" , Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a RFC... Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 23:28:48 -0700 Message-ID: <000401c3d4e7$82cbbcf0$6405a8c0@syscorp.systrends.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01C3D4AC.D66CE4F0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <006601c3d4de$cd81f420$92d1bd44@RIKBIG> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Jan 2004 06:23:28.0312 (UTC) FILETIME=[C3724B80:01C3D4E6] Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C3D4AC.D66CE4F0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MessagePerhaps a clarification for the following? 1. "AS2-Version: 1.1 - Designates those implementations which support Compression as defined by RFC 3274." 2. The draft draft-ietf-ediint-as2-14.txt does not reference draft-ietf-ediint-compression-03.txt. 3. draft-ietf-ediint-compression-03.txt does not reference RFC 3274. 4. draft-ietf-ediint-as2-14.txt does reference RFC 3274 for compression. -----Original Message----- From: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org]On Behalf Of Rik Drummond Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 10:26 PM To: ietf-ediint@imc.org Subject: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a RFC... .. are there any more comments on it before we do a last call on this list? Rik Drummond, Chair EDIINT WG ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C3D4AC.D66CE4F0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
Perhaps a clarification for the following?
 
1.=20 "AS2-Version: 1.1 - Designates those implementations which support = Compression=20 as defined by RFC 3274."
 
2. The=20 draft draft-ietf-ediint-as2-14.txt does not reference=20 draft-ietf-ediint-compression-03.txt.
 
3.=20 draft-ietf-ediint-compression-03.txt does not reference RFC=20 3274.
 
4.=20 draft-ietf-ediint-as2-14.txt does reference RFC 3274 for=20 compression.
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From:=20 owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org = [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org]On=20 Behalf Of Rik Drummond
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 = 10:26=20 PM
To: ietf-ediint@imc.org
Subject: I believe that = AS2 is=20 now ready to be submitted to IETF as a RFC...

.. = are there any=20 more comments on it before we do a last call on this = list?
 
Rik = Drummond,=20 Chair EDIINT WG
------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C3D4AC.D66CE4F0-- From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Fri Jan 9 10:42:41 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA07163 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:42:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i076iBib068343 for ; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 22:44:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id i076iBa1068342 for ietf-ediint-bks; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 22:44:11 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from drummondgroup.com (drummondgroup.com [161.58.166.198]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i076iAib068324 for ; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 22:44:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rvd2@drummondgroup.com) Received: from RIKBIG (68.189.209.146.sbi.ftwrth.tx.charter.com [68.189.209.146]) by drummondgroup.com (8.12.10/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i076iCdV027003 for ; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 23:44:13 -0700 (MST) From: "Rik Drummond" To: Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a RFC... Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 00:45:01 -0600 Organization: Drummond Group Inc Message-ID: <000301c3d4e9$c995ebe0$92d1bd44@RIKBIG> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0004_01C3D4B7.7EFD0280" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <000401c3d4e7$82cbbcf0$6405a8c0@syscorp.systrends.com> Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C3D4B7.7EFD0280 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable thanks... any more? -----Original Message----- From: Shan Harter [mailto:shan@systrends.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 12:29 AM To: 'Rik Drummond'; ietf-ediint@imc.org Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as = a RFC... Perhaps a clarification for the following? =20 1. "AS2-Version: 1.1 - Designates those implementations which support Compression as defined by RFC 3274." =20 2. The draft draft-ietf-ediint-as2-14.txt does not reference draft-ietf-ediint-compression-03.txt.=20 =20 3. draft-ietf-ediint-compression-03.txt does not reference RFC 3274. =20 4. draft-ietf-ediint-as2-14.txt does reference RFC 3274 for compression. =20 =20 -----Original Message----- From: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org]On Behalf Of Rik Drummond Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 10:26 PM To: ietf-ediint@imc.org Subject: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a = RFC... .. are there any more comments on it before we do a last call on this = list? =20 Rik Drummond, Chair EDIINT WG ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C3D4B7.7EFD0280 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
thanks... any more?
-----Original Message-----
From: Shan = Harter=20 [mailto:shan@systrends.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, = 2004 12:29=20 AM
To: 'Rik Drummond'; = ietf-ediint@imc.org
Subject: RE: I=20 believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a=20 RFC...

Perhaps a clarification for the = following?
 
1.=20 "AS2-Version: 1.1 - Designates those implementations which support = Compression=20 as defined by RFC 3274."
 
2.=20 The draft draft-ietf-ediint-as2-14.txt does not reference=20 draft-ietf-ediint-compression-03.txt.
 
3.=20 draft-ietf-ediint-compression-03.txt does not reference RFC=20 3274.
 
4.=20 draft-ietf-ediint-as2-14.txt does reference RFC 3274 for=20 compression.
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From:=20 owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org = [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org]On=20 Behalf Of Rik Drummond
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 = 10:26=20 PM
To: ietf-ediint@imc.org
Subject: I believe = that AS2=20 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a = RFC...

.. = are there any=20 more comments on it before we do a last call on this=20 list?
 
Rik Drummond,=20 Chair EDIINT = WG
------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C3D4B7.7EFD0280-- From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Fri Jan 9 10:43:59 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA07284 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:43:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i075Pcib046038 for ; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 21:25:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id i075PcF3046037 for ietf-ediint-bks; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 21:25:38 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from drummondgroup.com (drummondgroup.com [161.58.166.198]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i075Paib046028 for ; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 21:25:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rvd2@drummondgroup.com) Received: from RIKBIG (68.189.209.146.sbi.ftwrth.tx.charter.com [68.189.209.146]) by drummondgroup.com (8.12.10/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i075PY1M015460 for ; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 22:25:35 -0700 (MST) From: "Rik Drummond" To: Subject: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a RFC... Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 23:26:23 -0600 Organization: Drummond Group Inc Message-ID: <006601c3d4de$cd81f420$92d1bd44@RIKBIG> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0067_01C3D4AC.82E78420" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0067_01C3D4AC.82E78420 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit .. are there any more comments on it before we do a last call on this list? Rik Drummond, Chair EDIINT WG ------=_NextPart_000_0067_01C3D4AC.82E78420 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
.. are = there any=20 more comments on it before we do a last call on this = list?
 
Rik = Drummond, Chair=20 EDIINT WG
------=_NextPart_000_0067_01C3D4AC.82E78420-- From subs-reminder@imc.org Fri Jan 9 10:44:39 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA07432 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:44:37 -0500 (EST) From: subs-reminder@imc.org Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i071Qfib086687 for ; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 17:26:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from subs-reminder@imc.org) Received: (from root@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id i071QfI9086686; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 17:26:41 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 17:26:41 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200401070126.i071QfI9086686@above.proper.com> To: ediint-archive@ietf.org Subject: [[489932712]] Subscription to ietf-ediint for ediint-archive@lists.ietf.org Greetings. This message is a periodic reminder that ediint-archive@lists.ietf.org is subscribed to the ietf-ediint mailing list. *** SEE BELOW: PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS MESSAGE. *** There are two purposes for this message: - If this message is bounced by your mail server, I can remove you from the mailing list and reduce waste of bandwidth and resources. (If you are reading this message, it clearly didn't get bounced!) - Some people stay subscribed to mailing lists even though they do not want to because they do not know how to unsubscribe. If you want to stay subscribed to the ietf-ediint mailing list, you do not need to do anything. Feel free to delete this message. On the other hand, if you want to unsubscribe from this list, simply go to the following link: If for some reason you cannot go to that web site, you can also unsubscribe by email; however, doing so is not as likely to get you unsubscribed as the web site is. To unsubscribe using email, you can respond to this message and I will unsubscribe you by hand in the next few days. Again, this is not assured to work because your mail system may make it impossible for me to determine who you are or what you want to unsubscribe to. Alternatively, you can send a plain-text message to: ietf-ediint-request@imc.org with the single word unsubscribe in the body of the message. This last method assumes that the "From:" address in your mail is "ediint-archive@lists.ietf.org". Again, using the web site above is more likely to work than this method (due to limitations in Majordomo, the mailing list software we currently use). If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. --Paul Hoffman, list administrator From dzrpress@bol.com.br Fri Jan 9 20:09:54 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA02841 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 20:09:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af7dR-00023N-00 for ediint-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 20:09:53 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af7bV-0001rJ-00 for ediint-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 20:07:54 -0500 Received: from bgp01051152bgs.southg01.mi.comcast.net ([68.43.95.196] helo=ietf.org) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af7ZU-0001k8-00; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 20:05:51 -0500 From: "Temas Patrulhados" To: drums-archive@ietf.org Subject: Lindenberg e o Clero "sem-microfone" ref.: esx X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 20:05:51 -0500 X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=9.3 required=5.0 tests=FORGED_MUA_EUDORA,HTML_40_50, HTML_FONT_BIG,HTML_MESSAGE,LINES_OF_YELLING,LINES_OF_YELLING_2, MAILTO_TO_REMOVE,MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR,MIME_HTML_NO_CHARSET, MIME_HTML_ONLY,MSGID_FROM_MTA_SHORT,REMOVE_REMOVAL_2WORD, SUBJ_HAS_SPACES autolearn=no version=2.60 X-Spam-Report: * 1.0 SUBJ_HAS_SPACES Subject contains lots of white space * 0.5 REMOVE_REMOVAL_2WORD BODY: List removal information * 0.5 HTML_40_50 BODY: Message is 40% to 50% HTML * 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message * 0.1 HTML_FONT_BIG BODY: HTML has a big font * 0.0 LINES_OF_YELLING BODY: A WHOLE LINE OF YELLING DETECTED * 0.1 MIME_HTML_ONLY BODY: Message only has text/html MIME parts * 0.1 LINES_OF_YELLING_2 BODY: 2 WHOLE LINES OF YELLING DETECTED * 0.7 MIME_HTML_NO_CHARSET RAW: Message text in HTML without charset * 1.1 MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR URI: Includes a link to a likely spammer email * 0.0 MAILTO_TO_REMOVE URI: Includes a 'remove' email address * 3.3 MSGID_FROM_MTA_SHORT Message-Id was added by a relay * 1.9 FORGED_MUA_EUDORA Forged mail pretending to be from Eudora

Ref.: gxc FreeAutomaticTranslator / TraductorGratuito / Retirar / SubscreverGratuitamente

Série Temas "Patrulhados" (2)

Acabemos com mais uma exclusão: o Brasil precisa ouvir a voz do Clero sem-microfone

"Por que os grupelhos contestatários, de intenso ativismo no interior da Igreja, e cuja especialidade é reivindicar todo tipo de medidas antiexclusão, não incluem na sua agenda o fim do boicote contra os sacerdotes sem-microfone?"

Adolpho Lindenberg

O destaque que, há muitos anos, a mídia vem dando aos pronunciamentos de bispos e sacerdotes (em geral ligados à CNBB), incitando as invasões de terras promovidas pelo MST, criticando indiscriminadamente a Área de Livre Comércio das Américas (ALCA), as privatizações, as multinacionais (as norte-americanas, em especial), e o plantio dos transgênicos, apresenta um inconveniente sério: tais pronunciamentos podem criar a impressão de que a maioria do Episcopado e dos setores mais responsáveis do Clero brasileiro pensa como esses prelados.

Movimentos contestatários

É contristador perceber que na vasta rede de movimentos contestatários que está sendo articulada por todo o país, a ala progressista religiosa - fruto das Comunidades de Base e da Comissão Pastoral da Terra (CPT) - se sobressai como o núcleo mais ativo e radical em suas convicções. Para esses movimentos de contestação é de fundamental importância dar a impressão de que expressam a opinião majoritária, ou pelo menos muito expressiva, do Episcopado e no Clero.

Não é verdade, necessariamente.

Uma minoria do Clero fala, a maioria está calada

A realidade profunda é bem outra. A maioria do Episcopado e do Clero, na realidade, não tem voz nem vez na grande mídia. Suas pastorais, sermões e opiniões não chegam ao grande público. Quase ninguém os conhece, só alguns paroquianos e amigos próximos, com quem compartilham confidências. Eles são os prelados e sacerdotes sem-microfone; pertencem à imensa maioria dos excluídos dos grandes meios de difusão. E muitos deles inteligentes, cultos, de expressão fácil, com reflexões que ajudariam muito à autêntica formação da opinião nacional. Até por exigência de equilíbrio na ponderação das opiniões e de equidade em relação a este setor social, eles também precisariam ser ouvidos.

Padres sem-microfone são discriminados

O grande número dos padres sem-microfone, muitas vezes, talvez na maioria esmagadora dos casos, teria reservas sérias com as invasões e depredações das propriedades agrícolas. Mas são discriminados, não são ouvidos pelo público. De nada adiantam suas advertências. Não repercutem. Estão excluídos. Para eles, não funciona a encenação publicitária aparatosa, suas opiniões são ignoradas pela grande imprensa, o que acontece por exemplo no caso de "O Grito dos Excluídos". É que, para azar deles, nem estão entre os promotores da revolução social, nem pertencem aos pequenos grupos dos privilegiados pela mídia.

Excluir a exclusão

É preciso que se inclua entre os formadores de opinião, com acesso à mídia, também os prelados e sacerdotes que hoje estão sem microfone. Por que deixá-los de fora? Por que os grupelhos contestatários, de intenso ativismo no interior da Igreja, e cuja especialidade é reivindicar todo tipo de medidas antiexclusão, não incluem na agenda já tão abrangente do "Grito dos Excluídos" também o fim do boicote contra os sacerdotes sem-microfone? Afinal de contas, não se proclamam os seus participantes em batalha contra as exclusões, pelo fim das discriminações? Ou é que umas exclusões podem existir, e são bem-vindas, e outras não? Se for assim afastam-se do que deseja o povo, pois milhões de brasileiros querem saber o que pensa o Clero sem-microfone.

Adolpho Lindenberg é autor do livro "Os católicos e a economia de mercado".

LINKS:

Lindenberg:Concordo (envie seu voto virtual, e, melhor ainda, acrescente seu comentário, caso desejar)

Lindenberg:Discordo (idem)

Lindenberg:MinhaOpinião (para enviar sua valiosa opinião, assim como sugerir a Lindenberg temas relacionados com a temática apresentada, a serem abordados em seus próximos artigos)

LINKS PARA RECEBER ARTIGOS GRATUITOS:

PaginasGratuitas (para receber gratuitamente, por e-mail, Índice e Introdução à edição brasileira do livro de Lindenberg)

GratuitamenteArtigosAnteriores / GratuitamenteProximosArtigos / GratuitamenteTodosOsArtigos

LINKS PARA ADQUIRIR O LIVRO

Lindenberg:DesejoAdquirirLivroEmPortugal (receberá por e-mail o link para adquirir o livro impresso, diretamente da Editora em Portugal; preço: E 19,45)

Lindenberg:DesejoAdquirirLivroNoBrasil (receberá por e-mail o link para adquirir o livro impresso, diretamente da Editora no Brasil, com cartão de crédito ou boleto bancário; preço: R$ 30,00 mais Correio)

LINK DE REMOÇÃO

ConstruNews:Remover

LINK PARA TOMAR CONTATO COM LINDENBERG

Lindenberg:TomarContato (também pode ligar diretamente, se desejar, ao 11- 92527873, em São Paulo)

A difusão e o conteúdo desta mensagem são de exclusiva responsabilidade da ConstruNews

 From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Wed Jan 14 10:10:19 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA22075 for ; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 10:10:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0EEixib088996; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 06:44:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id i0EEixrD088995; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 06:44:59 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from drummondgroup.com (drummondgroup.com [161.58.166.198]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0EEivib088989 for ; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 06:44:57 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rvd2@drummondgroup.com) Received: from RIKBIG (68.189.209.146.sbi.ftwrth.tx.charter.com [68.189.209.146] (may be forged)) by drummondgroup.com (8.12.10/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i0EEik3G003134; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 07:44:47 -0700 (MST) From: "Rik Drummond" To: "'Dale Moberg'" , "'Kyle Meadors'" , Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a RFC... Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 08:45:31 -0600 Organization: Drummond Group Inc Message-ID: <003101c3daad$1318b6d0$92d1bd44@RIKBIG> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0032_01C3DA7A.C87E46D0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0032_01C3DA7A.C87E46D0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable last time that got us on as1, referencing an ID. we will have to ensure = it does not cause a problem this time. -----Original Message----- From: Dale Moberg [mailto:dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 3:48 PM To: Kyle Meadors; Rik Drummond; ietf-ediint@imc.org Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as = a RFC... Kyle, =20 If we reference the draft-ietf-compression-XX.txt document, will we have = to wait on it to become a RFC? =20 I seem to recall that IDs can be held up waiting for referenced drafts becoming RFCs-- Rik, do you remember the rule? =20 Anyway, I would prefer not to make the AS2 ID wait for the compression draft. =20 Dale Moberg -----Original Message----- From: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org = [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org] On Behalf Of Kyle Meadors Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 2:30 PM To: Rik Drummond; ietf-ediint@imc.org Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as = a RFC... Importance: Low The AS2 draft vs. 14 doesn't reference the draft-ietf-compression-XX.txt document. It probably should be added in section 6.1 of the AS2 draft in talking about AS2-Version 1.1 and compression, and then added in 11.0 in = the References section. =20 Kyle Meadors Drummond Group Inc. =20 _____ =20 From: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org = [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org] On Behalf Of Rik Drummond Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 12:45 AM To: ietf-ediint@imc.org Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as = a RFC... =20 thanks... any more? -----Original Message----- From: Shan Harter [mailto:shan@systrends.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 12:29 AM To: 'Rik Drummond'; ietf-ediint@imc.org Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as = a RFC... Perhaps a clarification for the following? =20 1. "AS2-Version: 1.1 - Designates those implementations which support Compression as defined by RFC 3274." =20 2. The draft draft-ietf-ediint-as2-14.txt does not reference draft-ietf-ediint-compression-03.txt.=20 =20 3. draft-ietf-ediint-compression-03.txt does not reference RFC 3274. =20 4. draft-ietf-ediint-as2-14.txt does reference RFC 3274 for compression. =20 =20 -----Original Message----- From: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org]On Behalf Of Rik Drummond Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 10:26 PM To: ietf-ediint@imc.org Subject: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a = RFC... .. are there any more comments on it before we do a last call on this = list? =20 Rik Drummond, Chair EDIINT WG ------=_NextPart_000_0032_01C3DA7A.C87E46D0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
last=20 time that got us on as1, referencing an ID. we will have to ensure it = does not=20 cause a problem this time.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dale = Moberg=20 [mailto:dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com]
Sent: Wednesday, = January 07,=20 2004 3:48 PM
To: Kyle Meadors; Rik Drummond;=20 ietf-ediint@imc.org
Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is now = ready to=20 be submitted to IETF as a RFC...

Kyle,
 
If=20 we reference the draft-ietf-compression-XX.txt = document,=20 will we have to wait on it to become a RFC?
 
I=20 seem to recall that IDs can be held up waiting for referenced drafts = becoming=20 RFCs-- Rik, do you remember the rule?
 
Anyway, I would prefer not to make the AS2 ID wait for the = compression=20 draft.
 
Dale=20 Moberg
-----Original Message-----
From:=20 owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org = [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org] On=20 Behalf Of Kyle Meadors
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, = 2004 2:30=20 PM
To: Rik Drummond; = ietf-ediint@imc.org
Subject: RE: I=20 believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a=20 RFC...
Importance: Low

The AS2 = draft vs.=20 14 doesn’t reference the draft-ietf-compression-XX.txt = document. It probably=20 should be added in section 6.1 of the AS2 draft in talking about = AS2-Version=20 1.1 and compression, and then added in 11.0 in the References=20 section.

 

Kyle=20 Meadors

Drummond = Group=20 Inc.

 

From:=20 owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org = [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org]=20 On Behalf Of Rik=20 Drummond
Sent: = Wednesday,=20 January 07, 2004 12:45 AM
To: = ietf-ediint@imc.org
Subject: RE: I believe that = AS2 is now=20 ready to be submitted to IETF as a = RFC...

 

thanks... = any=20 more?

-----Original=20 Message-----
From: Shan=20 Harter [mailto:shan@systrends.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January = 07, 2004=20 12:29 AM
To: = 'Rik=20 Drummond'; ietf-ediint@imc.org
Subject: RE: I believe that = AS2 is=20 now ready to be submitted to IETF as a = RFC...

Perhaps = a=20 clarification for the = following?

 

1. = "AS2-Version:=20 1.1 - Designates those implementations which support Compression = as=20 defined by RFC 3274."

 

2. The = draft=20 draft-ietf-ediint-as2-14.txt does not reference=20 draft-ietf-ediint-compression-03.txt. =

 

3.=20 draft-ietf-ediint-compression-03.txt does not reference RFC=20 3274.

 

4.=20 draft-ietf-ediint-as2-14.txt does reference RFC 3274 for=20 compression.

 

 

-----Original=20 Message-----
From:=20 owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org=20 [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org]On Behalf Of Rik=20 Drummond
Sent: Tuesday,=20 January 06, 2004 10:26 PM
To: = ietf-ediint@imc.org
Subject: I believe that = AS2 is now=20 ready to be submitted to IETF as a = RFC...

.. are there any = more=20 comments on it before we do a last call on this=20 list?

 

Rik Drummond, = Chair EDIINT=20 = WG

------=_NextPart_000_0032_01C3DA7A.C87E46D0-- From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Wed Jan 14 11:10:38 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25342 for ; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:10:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0EFrFib004135; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 07:53:15 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id i0EFrFwr004133; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 07:53:15 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from spyglass.cyclonecommerce.com (spyglass.cyclonecommerce.com [216.138.89.24]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0EFrEib004108 for ; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 07:53:15 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com) Received: from usazscsmh1.cyclonecommerce.com [10.1.0.24] by spyglass.cyclonecommerce.com with XWall v3.28 ; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 08:53:06 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.6944.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a RFC... MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C3DAB6.7C95EC69" Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 08:53:00 -0700 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a RFC... Thread-Index: AcParP1wzz3ZjrUeSUOv97oEBQ4xwAACWHMg From: "Dale Moberg" To: "Rik Drummond" , "Kyle Meadors" , Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3DAB6.7C95EC69 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable +1 Maybe introduce a division in references between normative and non-normative [if you add a ref to an ID] -----Original Message----- From: Rik Drummond [mailto:rvd2@drummondgroup.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 7:46 AM To: Dale Moberg; Kyle Meadors; ietf-ediint@imc.org Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a RFC... =09 =09 last time that got us on as1, referencing an ID. we will have to ensure it does not cause a problem this time. -----Original Message----- From: Dale Moberg [mailto:dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 3:48 PM To: Kyle Meadors; Rik Drummond; ietf-ediint@imc.org Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a RFC... =09 =09 Kyle, =20 If we reference the draft-ietf-compression-XX.txt document, will we have to wait on it to become a RFC? =20 I seem to recall that IDs can be held up waiting for referenced drafts becoming RFCs-- Rik, do you remember the rule? =20 Anyway, I would prefer not to make the AS2 ID wait for the compression draft. =20 Dale Moberg -----Original Message----- From: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org] On Behalf Of Kyle Meadors Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 2:30 PM To: Rik Drummond; ietf-ediint@imc.org Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a RFC... Importance: Low =09 =09 The AS2 draft vs. 14 doesn't reference the draft-ietf-compression-XX.txt document. It probably should be added in section 6.1 of the AS2 draft in talking about AS2-Version 1.1 and compression, and then added in 11.0 in the References section. =20 Kyle Meadors Drummond Group Inc. =20 =09 ________________________________ From: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org] On Behalf Of Rik Drummond Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 12:45 AM To: ietf-ediint@imc.org Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a RFC... =20 thanks... any more? -----Original Message----- From: Shan Harter [mailto:shan@systrends.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 12:29 AM To: 'Rik Drummond'; ietf-ediint@imc.org Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a RFC... Perhaps a clarification for the following? =20 1. "AS2-Version: 1.1 - Designates those implementations which support Compression as defined by RFC 3274." =20 2. The draft draft-ietf-ediint-as2-14.txt does not reference draft-ietf-ediint-compression-03.txt.=20 =20 3. draft-ietf-ediint-compression-03.txt does not reference RFC 3274. =20 4. draft-ietf-ediint-as2-14.txt does reference RFC 3274 for compression. =20 =20 -----Original Message----- From: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org]On Behalf Of Rik Drummond Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 10:26 PM To: ietf-ediint@imc.org Subject: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a RFC... .. are there any more comments on it before we do a last call on this list? =20 Rik Drummond, Chair EDIINT WG ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3DAB6.7C95EC69 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message=
+1=20 Maybe introduce a division in references between normative and = non-normative [if=20 you add a ref to an ID]
-----Original Message-----
From: Rik = Drummond=20 [mailto:rvd2@drummondgroup.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January = 14, 2004=20 7:46 AM
To: Dale Moberg; Kyle Meadors;=20 ietf-ediint@imc.org
Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is now = ready to=20 be submitted to IETF as a RFC...

last=20 time that got us on as1, referencing an ID. we will have to ensure it = does not=20 cause a problem this time.
-----Original Message-----
From: = Dale Moberg=20 [mailto:dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com]
Sent: Wednesday, = January 07,=20 2004 3:48 PM
To: Kyle Meadors; Rik Drummond;=20 ietf-ediint@imc.org
Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is now = ready=20 to be submitted to IETF as a RFC...

Kyle,
 
If=20 we reference the draft-ietf-compression-XX.txt = document,=20 will we have to wait on it to become a = RFC?
 
I=20 seem to recall that IDs can be held up waiting for referenced drafts = becoming RFCs-- Rik, do you remember the rule?
 
Anyway, I would prefer not to make the AS2 ID wait for the=20 compression draft.
 
Dale Moberg
-----Original Message-----
From:=20 owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org = [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org]=20 On Behalf Of Kyle Meadors
Sent: Wednesday, = January 07,=20 2004 2:30 PM
To: Rik Drummond;=20 ietf-ediint@imc.org
Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is = now ready=20 to be submitted to IETF as a RFC...
Importance:=20 Low

The AS2 = draft vs.=20 14 doesn’t reference the draft-ietf-compression-XX.txt = document. It=20 probably should be added in section 6.1 of the AS2 draft in = talking about=20 AS2-Version 1.1 and compression, and then added in 11.0 in the = References=20 section.

 

Kyle=20 Meadors

Drummond Group=20 Inc.

 

From:=20 owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org = [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org]=20 On Behalf Of Rik=20 Drummond
Sent: = Wednesday,=20 January 07, 2004 12:45 AM
To: = ietf-ediint@imc.org
Subject: RE: I believe that = AS2 is=20 now ready to be submitted to IETF as a=20 RFC...

 

thanks... any=20 more?

-----Original=20 Message-----
From: Shan=20 Harter [mailto:shan@systrends.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January = 07, 2004=20 12:29 AM
To: = 'Rik=20 Drummond'; ietf-ediint@imc.org
Subject: RE: I believe = that AS2 is=20 now ready to be submitted to IETF as a=20 RFC...

Perhaps a=20 clarification for the = following?

 

1.=20 "AS2-Version: 1.1 - Designates those implementations which = support=20 Compression as defined by RFC = 3274."

 

2. = The draft=20 draft-ietf-ediint-as2-14.txt does not reference=20 draft-ietf-ediint-compression-03.txt.=20

 

3.=20 draft-ietf-ediint-compression-03.txt does not reference RFC=20 3274.

 

4.=20 draft-ietf-ediint-as2-14.txt does reference RFC 3274 for=20 compression.

 

 

-----Original=20 Message-----
From:=20 owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org=20 [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org]On Behalf Of Rik=20 Drummond
Sent:=20 Tuesday, January 06, 2004 10:26 PM
To:=20 ietf-ediint@imc.org
Subject: I believe that = AS2 is=20 now ready to be submitted to IETF as a=20 RFC...

.. are there any = more=20 comments on it before we do a last call on this=20 list?

 

Rik Drummond, = Chair EDIINT=20 = WG

=00 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3DAB6.7C95EC69-- From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Wed Jan 14 12:23:26 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA28772 for ; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 12:23:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0EH5nib017061; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 09:05:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id i0EH5nO2017060; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 09:05:49 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from drummondgroup.com (drummondgroup.com [161.58.166.198]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0EH5mib017054 for ; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 09:05:48 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rvd2@drummondgroup.com) Received: from RIKBIG (68.189.209.146.sbi.ftwrth.tx.charter.com [68.189.209.146] (may be forged)) by drummondgroup.com (8.12.10/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i0EH5f2R069996; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 10:05:41 -0700 (MST) From: "Rik Drummond" To: "'Dale Moberg'" , "'Kyle Meadors'" , Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a RFC... Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:06:26 -0600 Organization: Drummond Group Inc Message-ID: <000901c3dac0$c252fb20$92d1bd44@RIKBIG> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000A_01C3DA8E.77BA11C0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C3DA8E.77BA11C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ok Kyle and I will look at that -----Original Message----- From: Dale Moberg [mailto:dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 9:53 AM To: Rik Drummond; Kyle Meadors; ietf-ediint@imc.org Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as = a RFC... +1 Maybe introduce a division in references between normative and non-normative [if you add a ref to an ID] -----Original Message----- From: Rik Drummond [mailto:rvd2@drummondgroup.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 7:46 AM To: Dale Moberg; Kyle Meadors; ietf-ediint@imc.org Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as = a RFC... last time that got us on as1, referencing an ID. we will have to ensure = it does not cause a problem this time. -----Original Message----- From: Dale Moberg [mailto:dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 3:48 PM To: Kyle Meadors; Rik Drummond; ietf-ediint@imc.org Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as = a RFC... Kyle, =20 If we reference the draft-ietf-compression-XX.txt document, will we have = to wait on it to become a RFC? =20 I seem to recall that IDs can be held up waiting for referenced drafts becoming RFCs-- Rik, do you remember the rule? =20 Anyway, I would prefer not to make the AS2 ID wait for the compression draft. =20 Dale Moberg -----Original Message----- From: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org = [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org] On Behalf Of Kyle Meadors Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 2:30 PM To: Rik Drummond; ietf-ediint@imc.org Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as = a RFC... Importance: Low The AS2 draft vs. 14 doesn't reference the draft-ietf-compression-XX.txt document. It probably should be added in section 6.1 of the AS2 draft in talking about AS2-Version 1.1 and compression, and then added in 11.0 in = the References section. =20 Kyle Meadors Drummond Group Inc. =20 _____ =20 From: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org = [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org] On Behalf Of Rik Drummond Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 12:45 AM To: ietf-ediint@imc.org Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as = a RFC... =20 thanks... any more? -----Original Message----- From: Shan Harter [mailto:shan@systrends.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 12:29 AM To: 'Rik Drummond'; ietf-ediint@imc.org Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as = a RFC... Perhaps a clarification for the following? =20 1. "AS2-Version: 1.1 - Designates those implementations which support Compression as defined by RFC 3274." =20 2. The draft draft-ietf-ediint-as2-14.txt does not reference draft-ietf-ediint-compression-03.txt.=20 =20 3. draft-ietf-ediint-compression-03.txt does not reference RFC 3274. =20 4. draft-ietf-ediint-as2-14.txt does reference RFC 3274 for compression. =20 =20 -----Original Message----- From: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org]On Behalf Of Rik Drummond Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 10:26 PM To: ietf-ediint@imc.org Subject: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a = RFC... .. are there any more comments on it before we do a last call on this = list? =20 Rik Drummond, Chair EDIINT WG ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C3DA8E.77BA11C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
ok=20 Kyle and I will look at that
-----Original Message-----
From: Dale = Moberg=20 [mailto:dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com]
Sent: Wednesday, = January 14,=20 2004 9:53 AM
To: Rik Drummond; Kyle Meadors;=20 ietf-ediint@imc.org
Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is now = ready to=20 be submitted to IETF as a RFC...

+1=20 Maybe introduce a division in references between normative and = non-normative=20 [if you add a ref to an ID]
-----Original Message-----
From: = Rik Drummond=20 [mailto:rvd2@drummondgroup.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January = 14, 2004=20 7:46 AM
To: Dale Moberg; Kyle Meadors;=20 ietf-ediint@imc.org
Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is now = ready=20 to be submitted to IETF as a RFC...

last time that got us on as1, referencing an ID. we will = have to=20 ensure it does not cause a problem this time.
-----Original Message-----
From: = Dale Moberg=20 [mailto:dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com]
Sent: Wednesday, = January=20 07, 2004 3:48 PM
To: Kyle Meadors; Rik Drummond;=20 ietf-ediint@imc.org
Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is = now ready=20 to be submitted to IETF as a RFC...

Kyle,
 
If we reference the=20 draft-ietf-compression-XX.txt document, will we have to wait on it = to=20 become a RFC?
 
I seem to recall that IDs can be held up waiting for = referenced=20 drafts becoming RFCs-- Rik, do you remember the = rule?
 
Anyway, I would prefer not to make the AS2 ID wait for = the=20 compression draft.
 
Dale Moberg
-----Original = Message-----
From:=20 owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org = [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org]=20 On Behalf Of Kyle Meadors
Sent: Wednesday, = January 07,=20 2004 2:30 PM
To: Rik Drummond;=20 ietf-ediint@imc.org
Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is = now=20 ready to be submitted to IETF as a RFC...
Importance:=20 Low

The = AS2 draft=20 vs. 14 doesn’t reference the draft-ietf-compression-XX.txt = document. It=20 probably should be added in section 6.1 of the AS2 draft in = talking=20 about AS2-Version 1.1 and compression, and then added in 11.0 in = the=20 References section.

 

Kyle=20 Meadors

Drummond Group=20 Inc.

 

From:=20 owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org = [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org]=20 On Behalf Of Rik = Drummond
Sent:=20 Wednesday, January 07, 2004 12:45 AM
To: = ietf-ediint@imc.org
Subject: RE: I believe = that AS2 is=20 now ready to be submitted to IETF as a=20 RFC...

 

thanks... any=20 more?

-----Original=20 Message-----
From:=20 Shan Harter [mailto:shan@systrends.com]
Sent: Wednesday, = January 07, 2004=20 12:29 AM
To: 'Rik=20 Drummond'; ietf-ediint@imc.org
Subject: RE: I believe = that AS2=20 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a=20 RFC...

Perhaps a=20 clarification for the = following?

 

1.=20 "AS2-Version: 1.1 - Designates those implementations which = support=20 Compression as defined by RFC=20 3274."

 

2. = The draft=20 draft-ietf-ediint-as2-14.txt does not reference=20 draft-ietf-ediint-compression-03.txt.=20

 

3.=20 draft-ietf-ediint-compression-03.txt does not reference RFC=20 3274.

 

4.=20 draft-ietf-ediint-as2-14.txt does reference RFC 3274 for=20 compression.

 

 

-----Original = Message-----
From:=20 owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org=20 [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org]On Behalf Of Rik=20 Drummond
Sent:=20 Tuesday, January 06, 2004 10:26 PM
To:=20 ietf-ediint@imc.org
Subject: I believe = that AS2 is=20 now ready to be submitted to IETF as a=20 RFC...

.. are there = any more=20 comments on it before we do a last call on this=20 list?

 

Rik Drummond, = Chair=20 EDIINT=20 = WG

------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C3DA8E.77BA11C0-- From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Wed Jan 14 12:43:38 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA29705 for ; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 12:43:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0EHLKib017621; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 09:21:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id i0EHLKRG017620; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 09:21:20 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from drummondgroup.com (drummondgroup.com [161.58.166.198]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0EHLIib017614 for ; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 09:21:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kyle@drummondgroup.com) Received: from KYLEDGILAPTOP (pcp01755874pcs.nash01.tn.comcast.net [68.52.238.39]) by drummondgroup.com (8.12.10/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i0EHLI5J078815 for ; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 10:21:18 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <200401141721.i0EHLI5J078815@drummondgroup.com> From: "Kyle Meadors" To: Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a RFC... Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:21:18 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0085_01C3DA90.88EF0F20" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Thread-Index: AcPawKOcHvkshAowQOySQIdYkPlkZQAAZi6Q In-Reply-To: <000901c3dac0$c252fb20$92d1bd44@RIKBIG> Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0085_01C3DA90.88EF0F20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sure. The IETF makes this distinction about referencing normative and non-normative =20 Normative references to IDs will cause a standards-track or BCP document = to wait for the referenced RFCs to be published.=20 Non-normative references will have the I-D file name stripped out by the = RFC Editor and replaced with (work in progress). =20 I believe if we make the compression draft a non-normative reference, we would not have to wait for it to be RFC-ed. I can make a new version = with these suggested changes, and send it to Rik/Dale. If it looks good them, = Rik can resubmit to the WG for approval. =20 Is there any other suggestions or comments on the current draft? =20 Kyle =20 _____ =20 From: Rik Drummond [mailto:rvd2@drummondgroup.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 11:06 AM To: 'Dale Moberg'; 'Kyle Meadors'; ietf-ediint@imc.org Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as = a RFC... =20 ok Kyle and I will look at that -----Original Message----- From: Dale Moberg [mailto:dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 9:53 AM To: Rik Drummond; Kyle Meadors; ietf-ediint@imc.org Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as = a RFC... +1 Maybe introduce a division in references between normative and non-normative [if you add a ref to an ID] -----Original Message----- From: Rik Drummond [mailto:rvd2@drummondgroup.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 7:46 AM To: Dale Moberg; Kyle Meadors; ietf-ediint@imc.org Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as = a RFC... last time that got us on as1, referencing an ID. we will have to ensure = it does not cause a problem this time. -----Original Message----- From: Dale Moberg [mailto:dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 3:48 PM To: Kyle Meadors; Rik Drummond; ietf-ediint@imc.org Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as = a RFC... Kyle, =20 If we reference the draft-ietf-compression-XX.txt document, will we have = to wait on it to become a RFC? =20 I seem to recall that IDs can be held up waiting for referenced drafts becoming RFCs-- Rik, do you remember the rule? =20 Anyway, I would prefer not to make the AS2 ID wait for the compression draft. =20 Dale Moberg -----Original Message----- From: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org = [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org] On Behalf Of Kyle Meadors Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 2:30 PM To: Rik Drummond; ietf-ediint@imc.org Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as = a RFC... Importance: Low The AS2 draft vs. 14 doesn=92t reference the = draft-ietf-compression-XX.txt document. It probably should be added in section 6.1 of the AS2 draft in talking about AS2-Version 1.1 and compression, and then added in 11.0 in = the References section. =20 Kyle Meadors Drummond Group Inc. =20 _____ =20 From: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org = [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org] On Behalf Of Rik Drummond Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 12:45 AM To: ietf-ediint@imc.org Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as = a RFC... =20 thanks... any more? -----Original Message----- From: Shan Harter [mailto:shan@systrends.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 12:29 AM To: 'Rik Drummond'; ietf-ediint@imc.org Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as = a RFC... Perhaps a clarification for the following? =20 1. "AS2-Version: 1.1 - Designates those implementations which support Compression as defined by RFC 3274." =20 2. The draft draft-ietf-ediint-as2-14.txt does not reference draft-ietf-ediint-compression-03.txt.=20 =20 3. draft-ietf-ediint-compression-03.txt does not reference RFC 3274. =20 4. draft-ietf-ediint-as2-14.txt does reference RFC 3274 for compression. =20 =20 -----Original Message----- From: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org]On Behalf Of Rik Drummond Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 10:26 PM To: ietf-ediint@imc.org Subject: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a = RFC... .. are there any more comments on it before we do a last call on this = list? =20 Rik Drummond, Chair EDIINT WG --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 1/7/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 1/7/2004 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0085_01C3DA90.88EF0F20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message

Sure. The IETF makes this = distinction about referencing normative and = non-normative

 

Normative references to IDs will = cause a standards-track or BCP document to wait for the referenced RFCs to be published.

Non-normative references will have = the I-D file name stripped out by the RFC Editor and replaced with (work in = progress).

 

I believe if we make the = compression draft a non-normative reference, we would not have to wait for it to be = RFC-ed. I can make a new version with these suggested changes, and send it to = Rik/Dale. If it looks good them, Rik can resubmit to the WG for = approval.

 

Is there any other suggestions or = comments on the current draft?

 

Kyle

 

From: Rik = Drummond [mailto:rvd2@drummondgroup.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January = 14, 2004 11:06 AM
To: 'Dale Moberg'; 'Kyle = Meadors'; ietf-ediint@imc.org
Subject: RE: I believe = that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a = RFC...

 

ok Kyle and I will look at = that

-----Original = Message-----
From: Dale Moberg [mailto:dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January = 14, 2004 9:53 AM
To: Rik Drummond; Kyle = Meadors; ietf-ediint@imc.org
Subject: RE: I believe = that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a = RFC...

+1 Maybe introduce a division in references between normative and non-normative [if you add a ref to an = ID]

-----Original = Message-----
From: Rik Drummond [mailto:rvd2@drummondgroup.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January = 14, 2004 7:46 AM
To: Dale Moberg; Kyle = Meadors; ietf-ediint@imc.org
Subject: RE: I believe = that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a = RFC...

last time that got us on as1, = referencing an ID. we will have to ensure it does not cause a problem this = time.

-----Original = Message-----
From: Dale Moberg [mailto:dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January = 07, 2004 3:48 PM
To: Kyle Meadors; Rik = Drummond; ietf-ediint@imc.org
Subject: RE: I believe = that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a = RFC...

Kyle,

 

If we reference the draft-ietf-compression-XX.txt document, will we have to = wait on it to become a RFC?

 

I seem to recall that IDs can be = held up waiting for referenced drafts becoming RFCs-- Rik, do you remember the = rule?

 

Anyway, I would prefer not to make = the AS2 ID wait for the compression draft.

 

Dale = Moberg

-----Original = Message-----
From: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org] = On Behalf Of Kyle Meadors
Sent: Wednesday, January = 07, 2004 2:30 PM
To: Rik Drummond; = ietf-ediint@imc.org
Subject: RE: I believe = that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a RFC...
Importance: = Low

The AS2 draft vs. 14 doesn’t = reference the draft-ietf-compression-XX.txt document. It probably should be added in = section 6.1 of the AS2 draft in talking about AS2-Version 1.1 and compression, = and then added in 11.0 in the References section.

 

Kyle = Meadors

Drummond Group = Inc.

 

From: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org] = On Behalf Of Rik Drummond
Sent: Wednesday, January = 07, 2004 12:45 AM
To: = ietf-ediint@imc.org
Subject: RE: I believe = that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a = RFC...

 

thanks... any = more?

-----Original = Message-----
From: Shan Harter [mailto:shan@systrends.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January = 07, 2004 12:29 AM
To: 'Rik Drummond'; ietf-ediint@imc.org
Subject: RE: I believe = that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a = RFC...

Perhaps a clarification for the = following?

 

1. "AS2-Version: 1.1 - = Designates those implementations which support Compression as defined by RFC = 3274."

 

2. The draft = draft-ietf-ediint-as2-14.txt does not reference draft-ietf-ediint-compression-03.txt. =

 

3. = draft-ietf-ediint-compression-03.txt does not reference RFC 3274.

 

4. draft-ietf-ediint-as2-14.txt = does reference RFC 3274 for compression.

 

 

-----Original = Message-----
From: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org = [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org]On Behalf Of Rik Drummond
Sent: Tuesday, January = 06, 2004 10:26 PM
To: = ietf-ediint@imc.org
Subject: I believe that = AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a RFC...

.. are there any more comments on it before we do a = last call on this list?

 

Rik Drummond, Chair EDIINT = WG


---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 1/7/2004


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 1/7/2004

------=_NextPart_000_0085_01C3DA90.88EF0F20-- From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Wed Jan 14 15:34:54 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09988 for ; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 15:34:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0EKGIib024035; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 12:16:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id i0EKGIwf024034; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 12:16:18 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from drummondgroup.com (drummondgroup.com [161.58.166.198]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0EKGGib024024 for ; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 12:16:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rvd2@drummondgroup.com) Received: from RIKBIG (68.189.209.146.sbi.ftwrth.tx.charter.com [68.189.209.146] (may be forged)) by drummondgroup.com (8.12.10/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i0EKGAOh056704; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 13:16:10 -0700 (MST) From: "Rik Drummond" To: , "'Dale Moberg'" Cc: "'Kyle Meadors'" , Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a RFC... Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:16:55 -0600 Organization: Drummond Group Inc Message-ID: <000b01c3dadb$5e613df0$92d1bd44@RIKBIG> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal In-reply-to: <01L5DZXZB4K000Q4RU@mauve.mrochek.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by above.proper.com id i0EKGHib024027 Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Ok guys if this is all the final edits, Kyle and I will clean as2 up, do a last call on the list, and then submit it for rfc. Great we are almost done. Now have over 35 products with thousands of installations across the world.... Best regards, rik -----Original Message----- From: ned.freed@mrochek.com [mailto:ned.freed@mrochek.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 2:10 PM To: Dale Moberg Cc: Rik Drummond; Kyle Meadors; ietf-ediint@imc.org Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a RFC... > +1 Maybe introduce a division in references between normative and > non-normative [if you add a ref to an ID] This separation needs to be implemented regardless; current RFC Editor rules require it. Ned From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Wed Jan 14 15:37:24 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA10113 for ; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 15:37:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0EKCqib023866; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 12:12:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id i0EKCqIO023865; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 12:12:52 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [209.55.107.55]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0EKCpib023858 for ; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 12:12:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ned.freed@mrochek.com) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01L59XEO364W00Q4RU@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf-ediint@imc.org; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 12:10:37 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 12:09:48 -0800 (PST) From: ned.freed@mrochek.com Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a RFC... In-reply-to: "Your message dated Wed, 14 Jan 2004 08:53:00 -0700" To: Dale Moberg Cc: Rik Drummond , Kyle Meadors , ietf-ediint@imc.org Message-id: <01L5DZXZB4K000Q4RU@mauve.mrochek.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT > +1 Maybe introduce a division in references between normative and > non-normative [if you add a ref to an ID] This separation needs to be implemented regardless; current RFC Editor rules require it. Ned From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Thu Jan 15 03:28:18 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA18790 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 03:28:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0F8EKib095565; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 00:14:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id i0F8EKWC095564; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 00:14:20 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [209.55.107.55]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0F8EJib095559 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 00:14:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ned.freed@mrochek.com) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01L5EIL9EPCG00Q4RU@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf-ediint@imc.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 00:14:14 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 00:12:17 -0800 (PST) From: ned.freed@mrochek.com Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a RFC... In-reply-to: "Your message dated Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:16:55 -0600" <000b01c3dadb$5e613df0$92d1bd44@RIKBIG> To: Rik Drummond Cc: ned.freed@mrochek.com, "'Dale Moberg'" , "'Kyle Meadors'" , ietf-ediint@imc.org Message-id: <01L5EP84GPQS00Q4RU@mauve.mrochek.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <01L5DZXZB4K000Q4RU@mauve.mrochek.com> <000b01c3dadb$5e613df0$92d1bd44@RIKBIG> Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT > Ok guys if this is all the final edits, Kyle and I will clean as2 up, do a > last call on the list, and then submit it for rfc. Great we are almost done. > Now have over 35 products with thousands of installations across the > world.... Best regards, rik I'll try to do a quick pass over it in the next couple of days to see if any other nits need to be addressed. I note in passing that the tls compression specification has undergone last call, IESG review, and is now back with the TLS WG for some changes before final approval. (As it happens I am one of the ADs with discuss votes on this one.) As such, the odds are quite good this will become an RFC before AS2. Ned From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Thu Jan 15 04:47:28 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA21805 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 04:47:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0F9bsib021438; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 01:37:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id i0F9bsQH021437; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 01:37:54 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from outbound1.sopragroup.com (outbound1.z-ptx-11.fr.sopragroup.com [81.80.239.198]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0F9boib021391 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 01:37:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from scaro@axway.com) Received: by outbound1.sopragroup.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/outbound-A02) with ESMTP id i0F9bi8r016423 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:37:45 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a RFC... Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:37:44 +0100 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a RFC... Thread-Index: AcPU6c9xQtpuZ+oeQwmdUJcDet4rUgAHIU/gAV7c8uA= From: "Caro Sebastien" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Jan 2004 09:41:16.0265 (UTC) FILETIME=[B89A3590:01C3DB4B] X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.38 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by above.proper.com id i0F9brib021429 Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I just subscribed to the mailing list a week ago and apologies if the comments I am doing have already been discussed, I didn't find anything about these points in the mailing list archive. - Section 5.1 (Sending EDI in HTTP Post Requests), paragraph 3 > When using Transport Layer Security [10] or SSLv3, the > request-URI should indicate the appropriate scheme value, > HTTPS A reference to "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818 might be added. When sending an HTTP POST request over TLS, the absoluteURI form of the request-URI (which contains the scheme value) shouldn't be used. I think this sentence can apply to the "return-url" string or a request-URI sent out of band (as mentioned in the first paragraph of the section), but not to the request-URI sent in the HTTP POST request. It should be removed from this section. I am not familiar with RFC writing, but it seems that HTTPS is not an assigned key word; maybe adding a note saying that 'HTTPS refers to the use of HTTP over TLS' would be more accurate. - Section 5.2.2 (Message bodies), paragraph 2 > In [4], sections 5.4.1, options for large file processing > are discussed for SMTP transport. For HTTP, large files > should be handled correctly by the TCP layer. However, [3] > sections 3.5 and 3.6 discuss some options for compressing or > chunking entities to be transferred. [3] Section 8.1.2.2 > discusses a pipelining option that is useful for segmenting > large amounts of data. I might be missing something but TCP layer doesn't have anything to do with handling large files. As far as I understood HTTP/1.1, segmenting data is only possible with the use of 'ranges', and 'ranges' are only available for GET responses. Segmenting data will not be possible with AS2. Pipelining only allows a client to make multiple requests without waiting for each response. - Section 7.2 (Synchronous and Asynchronous MDNs) > The synchronous AS2-MDN is sent as an HTTP response to an > HTTP POST or as an HTTPS response to an HTTPS POST. My comment might not be relevant at all, but there is a sort of repetition here. Continuing with my first comment, from protocol point of view, HTTPS can be seen as the use of HTTP over an implicit transparent TLS connection layer. Maybe this sentence could be: The synchronous AS2-MDN is sent as a response to a POST request, using either HTTP or HTTPS. or The synchronous AS2-MDN is sent as an HTTP response to a POST request, using TLS or not. - Section 7.3 (Requesting a Signed Receipt), paragraph 2 and any following example > mail-address field is specified as an RFC 2822 local- > part@domain [addr-spec] address, and while it MUST be ... > Disposition-notification-to: xxx@temp.org ... > Receipt-delivery-option: > http://www.AS2system.com ... The editor used to create the document has probably generated this, but any string that precedes an address, or an URL, and looks like "<...>", has to be removed. I hope this will help. Sebastien From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Thu Jan 15 09:59:30 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA09247 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 09:59:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0FEcGib048867; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 06:38:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id i0FEcFdT048866; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 06:38:15 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from drummondgroup.com (drummondgroup.com [161.58.166.198]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0FEcEib048856 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 06:38:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rvd2@drummondgroup.com) Received: from RIKBIG (68.189.209.146.sbi.ftwrth.tx.charter.com [68.189.209.146] (may be forged)) by drummondgroup.com (8.12.10/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i0FEc4xQ022589; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 07:38:04 -0700 (MST) From: "Rik Drummond" To: Cc: "'Dale Moberg'" , "'Kyle Meadors'" , Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a RFC... Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 08:38:48 -0600 Organization: Drummond Group Inc Message-ID: <001901c3db75$4d635d40$92d1bd44@RIKBIG> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-reply-to: <01L5EP84GPQS00Q4RU@mauve.mrochek.com> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by above.proper.com id i0FEcEib048860 Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Great! Thanks Ned -----Original Message----- From: ned.freed@mrochek.com [mailto:ned.freed@mrochek.com] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 2:12 AM To: Rik Drummond Cc: ned.freed@mrochek.com; 'Dale Moberg'; 'Kyle Meadors'; ietf-ediint@imc.org Subject: RE: I believe that AS2 is now ready to be submitted to IETF as a RFC... > Ok guys if this is all the final edits, Kyle and I will clean as2 up, > do a last call on the list, and then submit it for rfc. Great we are > almost done. Now have over 35 products with thousands of installations > across the world.... Best regards, rik I'll try to do a quick pass over it in the next couple of days to see if any other nits need to be addressed. I note in passing that the tls compression specification has undergone last call, IESG review, and is now back with the TLS WG for some changes before final approval. (As it happens I am one of the ADs with discuss votes on this one.) As such, the odds are quite good this will become an RFC before AS2. Ned From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Thu Jan 15 12:15:44 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15492 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 12:15:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0FGxfib057685; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 08:59:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id i0FGxfut057681; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 08:59:41 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from spyglass.cyclonecommerce.com (airband-216-138-89-24.airband.net [216.138.89.24] (may be forged)) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0FGxdib057672 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 08:59:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com) Received: from usazscsmh1.cyclonecommerce.com [10.1.0.24] by spyglass.cyclonecommerce.com with XWall v3.28 ; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 09:59:35 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.6944.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Pileline operation mode now unneeded in final AS2 IMO MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 09:59:30 -0700 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Pileline operation mode now unneeded in final AS2 IMO Thread-Index: AcPU6c9xQtpuZ+oeQwmdUJcDet4rUgAHIU/gAV7c8uAAQWGBEA== From: "Dale Moberg" To: "Caro Sebastien" , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by above.proper.com id i0FGxeib057677 Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Caro Sebastien noted about > In [4], sections 5.4.1, options for large file processing > are discussed for SMTP transport. For HTTP, large files should be > handled correctly by the TCP layer. However, [3] sections 3.5 and 3.6 > discuss some options for compressing or chunking entities to be > transferred. [3] Section 8.1.2.2 discusses a pipelining option that is > useful for segmenting large amounts of data. I might be missing something but TCP layer doesn't have anything to do with handling large files. As far as I understood HTTP/1.1, segmenting data is only possible with the use of 'ranges', and 'ranges' are only available for GET responses. Segmenting data will not be possible with AS2. Pipelining only allows a client to make multiple requests without waiting for each response. [also assures that the responses come back in order...] ====================== I think the TCP layer statement may be misleading. The rewording might be: "While TCP-based communication sets no intrinsic limit on size of files transferred,[3] sections 3.5 and 3.6 [etc.]" Section 8.1.2.2 probably can be omitted. If so, omit the reference here to that section. Early drafts had mentioned a pipeline mode of operation for either 1. a large number of separate messages to the same place or 2. operation in synchronous mode involving Request MDN-bundled-with-Response followed by MDN. (sequence of 2 complete HTTP request-response pairs). We no longer discuss this mode of operation, it is not tested in interoperability trials, and so we should probably trim it out at this point. If people want to operate in this mode, they can by private agreement outside the AS2 profiel. So I would vote to just scrap mention of pipelining mode at all in the final version. Dale Moberg From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Fri Jan 16 05:31:04 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA08477 for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 05:31:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0GABQib081950; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 02:11:26 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id i0GABPq0081948; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 02:11:25 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from outbound1.sopragroup.com (outbound1.z-ptx-11.fr.sopragroup.com [81.80.239.198]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0GABMib081899 for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 02:11:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from scaro@axway.com) Received: by outbound1.sopragroup.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/outbound-A02) with ESMTP id i0GABA95007063 for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 11:11:16 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: AS2 canonicalization for MIC calculation ? Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 11:11:14 +0100 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: AS2 canonicalization for MIC calculation ? Thread-Index: AcPcGRF61ynJfAl+TmOgxS/jBE4/Vw== From: "Caro Sebastien" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Jan 2004 10:14:49.0062 (UTC) FILETIME=[92BC6860:01C3DC19] X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.38 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by above.proper.com id i0GABOib081940 Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit It is said in AS2 section 7.3.1 (Signed receipt considerations) that in some cases canonicalization must be performed before the MIC is calculated. No reference is given on where to find the canonicalization process: - AS1 refers to RFC 1848 - MIME defines canonical form as the result of steps where one of them rely on media type specific representation (RFC 2049 section 4) - S/MIME refers to MIME RFC 1848 (section 2.1.1) isn't very clear, but it says that the originator must replace local line terminators by CRLF before computing the digital signature and then send data with the local line terminators. If such a thing is done to transfer data between 2 different systems, it is obvious that the receiver will not know the originator line terminator, and he will therefore not be able to re-insert CRLF at the right places. RFC 1767 and RFC 2376 do not introduce any canonical representation. By the way, RFC 2376 has been obsoleted by 3023, shouldn't AS2 RFC use references to this document instead? S/MIME says that 'The data to be secured is always a canonical MIME entity'. So, signed or ciphered data is sent already canonicalized and it doesn't seem necessary for the receiver to canonicalize once more the received data. Still in AS2 section 7.3.1, > - For any signed messages, the MIC to be returned is > calculated on the RFC1767/RFC2376 MIME header and content. > Canonicalization on the MIME headers MUST be performed > before the MIC is calculated, since the sender requesting > the signed receipt was also REQUIRED to canonicalize. > - For encrypted, unsigned messages, the MIC to be returned > is calculated on the decrypted RFC 1767/RFC2376 MIME header > and content. The content after decryption MUST be > canonicalized before the MIC is calculated. The MIME header is supposed to be in a canonical form, containing CRLFs. The sent data is contained in a MIME entity which is itself inside the request body. HTTP request bodies are not to be altered. I am a bit confused by the amount of information I found and would appreciate clarification. Sebastien From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Fri Jan 16 10:30:38 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA18142 for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 10:30:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0GFBwib001051; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 07:11:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id i0GFBw80001050; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 07:11:58 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from spyglass.cyclonecommerce.com (airband-216-138-89-24.airband.net [216.138.89.24] (may be forged)) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0GFBuib000983 for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 07:11:56 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com) Received: from usazscsmh1.cyclonecommerce.com [10.1.0.24] by spyglass.cyclonecommerce.com with XWall v3.28 ; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 08:11:52 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.6944.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: RE: AS2 canonicalization for MIC calculation ? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 08:11:51 -0700 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: AS2 canonicalization for MIC calculation ? Thread-Index: AcPcGRF61ynJfAl+TmOgxS/jBE4/VwAB821g From: "Dale Moberg" To: "Caro Sebastien" , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by above.proper.com id i0GFBvib001017 Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sebastien observes> It is said in AS2 section 7.3.1 (Signed receipt considerations) that in some cases canonicalization must be performed before the MIC is calculated. Canonicalization of _headers_ (mainly the MIME entity headers for MIC calcs, of course) For uniformity, canonicalization of MIME headers is always required. Implementations could optimize whether they need to run a check in some cases, though. Canonicalization of headers means, then, that they must have CRLF at the end of lines and as a separator between header and body. This iz just the MIME ABNF rules (RFC 2822, section 2.1, 2.2), 821 appendix, 2045, etc. message = fields *( CRLF *text ) ; Everything after ; first null line ; is message body field = field-name ":" [ field-body ] CRLF [...] entity-headers := [ content CRLF ] [ encoding CRLF ] [ id CRLF ] [ description CRLF ] *( MIME-extension-field CRLF ) Sebastien observes> RFC 1848 (section 2.1.1) isn't very clear, but it says that the originator must replace local line terminators by CRLF before computing the digital signature and then send data with the local line terminators. Well, the MIME conventions of HTTP and SMTP messages differ in several ways previously discussed in this group, and elsewhere, and in various contexts. RFC 1848 (1995) is oriented toward "SMTP-style" MIME. It would be misleading to reference it for HTTP, and this is not done, nor is it necessary or desirable. It would introduce more confusion over what is really a very simple point. Sebastien observes> By the way, RFC 2376 has been obsoleted by 3023, shouldn't AS2 RFC use references to this document instead? Yes. Sebastien observes> S/MIME says that 'The data to be secured is always a canonical MIME entity'. So, signed or ciphered data is sent already canonicalized and it doesn't seem necessary for the receiver to canonicalize once more the received data. An implementation may choose to optimize this case. Nevertheless, for uniformity, the specese is that for MIC calculations MIME headers must be canonicalized (CRLF), and what are MIME headers will be syntactically clear in HTTP MIME. Sebastien observes> Still in AS2 section 7.3.1, > - For any signed messages, the MIC to be returned is calculated on the > RFC1767/RFC2376 MIME header and content. Canonicalization on the MIME > headers MUST be performed before the MIC is calculated, since the > sender requesting the signed receipt was also REQUIRED to > canonicalize. Yes, very few people have found it unclear what canonicalization of MIME headers means. Are you saying that we should be more explicit here and mention CRLF as end of line and as header/body separator? We can do so in a parenthetical remark. I personally see no real need to cite a spec. This is more a warning to implementers that CRLF may get munged, so always calculate the MIC over the ABNF-correct MIME headers. I guess the syntax for headers is the reference you hanker to have? Would RFC 2822 suffice? > - For encrypted, unsigned messages, the MIC to be returned > is calculated on the decrypted RFC 1767/RFC2376 MIME header and > content. The content after decryption MUST be canonicalized before the > MIC is calculated. Caro Sebastien observes> The MIME header is supposed to be in a canonical form, containing CRLFs. The sent data is contained in a MIME entity which is itself inside the request body. HTTP request bodies are not to be altered. Yes, and alteration [other than change of line endings!] should be detectable when signatures exist. From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Fri Jan 16 14:23:34 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25258 for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 14:23:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0GJ6Zib013885; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 11:06:35 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id i0GJ6ZZO013884; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 11:06:35 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from outbound1.sopragroup.com (outbound1.z-ptx-11.fr.sopragroup.com [81.80.239.198]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0GJ6Wib013875 for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 11:06:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from scaro@axway.com) Received: by outbound1.sopragroup.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/outbound-A02) with ESMTP id i0GJ6S8r020609 for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 20:06:29 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: RE: AS2 canonicalization for MIC calculation ? Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 20:06:28 +0100 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: AS2 canonicalization for MIC calculation ? Thread-Index: AcPcGRF61ynJfAl+TmOgxS/jBE4/VwAB821gAAqIpoA= From: "Caro Sebastien" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Jan 2004 19:10:03.0640 (UTC) FILETIME=[58841F80:01C3DC64] X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.38 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by above.proper.com id i0GJ6Yib013880 Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Thanks, things are a bit clearer now, I took things literally where it is said that canonicalization MUST be performed to the received data. It is clear that signed data cannot have been altered. So, the received MIME header (RFC1767/RFC2376) is the exactly one sent by the originator. - If the originator has respected MIME standard, the received header contains CRLFs, is blank line terminated... It is already canonicalized. Canonicalization will then not change anything for the MIC calculation. - If the sender hasn't respected MIME standard and sent lines not ending with CRLF, the result of the canonicalization will depend on the receiver interpretation of things. The receiver can't know anything about the originator's local properties. Maybe a canonicalization consisting of replacing bare CR and bare LF with CRLF will handle most of the cases, but it won't be a 100% sure process for MIC calculation. For encrypted, unsigned messages, the MIC is calculated on the canonicalization of the whole content (decrypted RFC 1767/RFC2376 MIME header and content). I will refer to the above paragraph for the header canonicalization. Body part canonicalization consists in converting data to a canonical form. It seems that nothing can be done by the receiver to convert application/EDIxxx data, or application/xml data, to a canonical form. I might be wrong, but my reasoning is mostly based on the fact that data cannot be modified, and, that if it has, there is no way of recovering the original data (which I see here as the right canonical form). I am really doubting that the result of the canonicalization on received data will correctly lead to a valid MIC. It seems that, in the best cases, data will not be modified by it (canonicalization will then not intervene in the MIC calculation). Maybe the mentioned lines in section 7.3.1 have been written to require that, before it is sent, data must canonicalized and a MIC must be calculated. The MIC will later be compared with the one returned by the receiver. The facts are that it is explicitly written that the canonicalization MUST be applied by the receiver to the received data. I totally agree on the importance of noticing implementers that data MUST be canonicalized. Sebastien -----Message d'origine----- De : Dale Moberg [mailto:dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com] Envoyé : vendredi 16 janvier 2004 16:12 À : Caro Sebastien; ietf-ediint@imc.org Objet : RE: AS2 canonicalization for MIC calculation ? Sebastien observes> It is said in AS2 section 7.3.1 (Signed receipt considerations) that in some cases canonicalization must be performed before the MIC is calculated. Canonicalization of _headers_ (mainly the MIME entity headers for MIC calcs, of course) For uniformity, canonicalization of MIME headers is always required. Implementations could optimize whether they need to run a check in some cases, though. Canonicalization of headers means, then, that they must have CRLF at the end of lines and as a separator between header and body. This iz just the MIME ABNF rules (RFC 2822, section 2.1, 2.2), 821 appendix, 2045, etc. message = fields *( CRLF *text ) ; Everything after ; first null line ; is message body field = field-name ":" [ field-body ] CRLF [...] entity-headers := [ content CRLF ] [ encoding CRLF ] [ id CRLF ] [ description CRLF ] *( MIME-extension-field CRLF ) Sebastien observes> RFC 1848 (section 2.1.1) isn't very clear, but it says that the originator must replace local line terminators by CRLF before computing the digital signature and then send data with the local line terminators. Well, the MIME conventions of HTTP and SMTP messages differ in several ways previously discussed in this group, and elsewhere, and in various contexts. RFC 1848 (1995) is oriented toward "SMTP-style" MIME. It would be misleading to reference it for HTTP, and this is not done, nor is it necessary or desirable. It would introduce more confusion over what is really a very simple point. Sebastien observes> By the way, RFC 2376 has been obsoleted by 3023, shouldn't AS2 RFC use references to this document instead? Yes. Sebastien observes> S/MIME says that 'The data to be secured is always a canonical MIME entity'. So, signed or ciphered data is sent already canonicalized and it doesn't seem necessary for the receiver to canonicalize once more the received data. An implementation may choose to optimize this case. Nevertheless, for uniformity, the specese is that for MIC calculations MIME headers must be canonicalized (CRLF), and what are MIME headers will be syntactically clear in HTTP MIME. Sebastien observes> Still in AS2 section 7.3.1, > - For any signed messages, the MIC to be returned is calculated on the > RFC1767/RFC2376 MIME header and content. Canonicalization on the MIME > headers MUST be performed before the MIC is calculated, since the > sender requesting the signed receipt was also REQUIRED to > canonicalize. Yes, very few people have found it unclear what canonicalization of MIME headers means. Are you saying that we should be more explicit here and mention CRLF as end of line and as header/body separator? We can do so in a parenthetical remark. I personally see no real need to cite a spec. This is more a warning to implementers that CRLF may get munged, so always calculate the MIC over the ABNF-correct MIME headers. I guess the syntax for headers is the reference you hanker to have? Would RFC 2822 suffice? > - For encrypted, unsigned messages, the MIC to be returned > is calculated on the decrypted RFC 1767/RFC2376 MIME header and > content. The content after decryption MUST be canonicalized before the > MIC is calculated. Caro Sebastien observes> The MIME header is supposed to be in a canonical form, containing CRLFs. The sent data is contained in a MIME entity which is itself inside the request body. HTTP request bodies are not to be altered. Yes, and alteration [other than change of line endings!] should be detectable when signatures exist. From lgknews@mail.com Sat Jan 17 22:37:27 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA25786 for ; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 22:37:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ai3kY-000593-00 for ediint-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 22:37:22 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ai3hV-00052v-00 for ediint-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 22:34:14 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ai3gO-0004ze-00; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 22:33:04 -0500 Received: from [209.58.115.177] (helo=ietf.org) by mx2.foretec.com with smtp (Exim 4.24) id 1Ai3fH-0006sa-VW; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 22:31:59 -0500 From: "Memorial Cubano:" To: discuss-web-archive@ietf.org Subject: Pedem Missas e orações pelas vítimas do comunismo ref.: ire User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.4.1) Gecko/20020314 Netscape6/6.2.2 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 22:31:59 -0500 X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=7.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_40_50,HTML_FONT_BIG, HTML_MESSAGE,MAILTO_SUBJ_REMOVE,MAILTO_TO_REMOVE,MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR, MIME_HTML_NO_CHARSET,MIME_HTML_ONLY,REMOVE_REMOVAL_2WORD, SUBJ_HAS_SPACES,SUBJ_ILLEGAL_CHARS autolearn=no version=2.60 X-Spam-Report: * 1.0 SUBJ_HAS_SPACES Subject contains lots of white space * 0.5 REMOVE_REMOVAL_2WORD BODY: List removal information * 0.5 HTML_40_50 BODY: Message is 40% to 50% HTML * 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message * 0.1 HTML_FONT_BIG BODY: HTML has a big font * 0.1 MIME_HTML_ONLY BODY: Message only has text/html MIME parts * 1.3 MAILTO_SUBJ_REMOVE BODY: mailto URI includes removal text * 0.7 MIME_HTML_NO_CHARSET RAW: Message text in HTML without charset * 1.1 MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR URI: Includes a link to a likely spammer email * 0.0 MAILTO_TO_REMOVE URI: Includes a 'remove' email address * 2.7 SUBJ_ILLEGAL_CHARS Subject contains too many raw illegal characters * 0.0 AWL AWL: Auto-whitelist adjustment

Ref.: (ijk) InEnglish / InItaliano / EnCastellano

Memorial cubano: Pedido de Missas e orações pelas vítimas do comunismo

A ajuda urgente que solicitamos é de caráter estritamente espiritual, ao alcance de cada um e, sem dúvida, a mais valiosa aos olhos de Deus

Queridos irmãos luso-brasileiros,

* Precisamos de vossa valiosa ajuda para resgatar do esquecimento a mais de 10 mil cubanos que morreram vítimas do regime comunista, sobre os quais se possui informação documentada. Esta ajuda que lhes solicitamos é de caráter estritamente espiritual, inteiramente ao alcance de cada um e, sem dúvida, a mais valiosa aos olhos de Deus!

* Entre os dias 20 e 23 de fevereiro próximo, no Tamiami Park de Miami, Flórida, voluntários de diversos países organizarão o Memorial Cubano, consistente em mais de 10 mil cruzes brancas, cada uma delas tendo inscrito o nome de uma vítima do regime comunista de Cuba. Familiares desterrados que nunca puderam dar o adeus a seus seres queridos assassinados, por não ser-lhes permitido visitar suas tumbas em Cuba, poderão fazê-lo agora.

* No centro da área se localizará uma cruz de madeira gigante, também pintada de branco, denominada "Cruz da vítima desconhecida", que constituirá o reconhecimento a todos os que morreram por causa do regime comunista, porém a respeito dos quais até o momento não se possui informação suficiente.

* De que maneira vocês podem unir-se a esta cruzada de orações e a esta homenagem espiritual? Simplesmente encomendando uma Missa ou serviço religioso, organizando com sua família, comunidade ou colegas de trabalho um momento de oração conjunta, ou rezando privadamente. Solicitamos-lhes que as Missas sejam encomendadas, se for possível, para o domingo 22 de fevereiro. Assim, no mundo inteiro, nesse dia se elevarão preces a Deus pelo eterno descanso dessas almas. Poderão encomendá-las em benefício das "vítimas do genocídio cubano sob o regime comunista de Fidel Castro".

* Muitas destas vítimas foram jovens que enfrentaram o "paredón" de fuzilamento proclamando "Viva Cristo Rei!"

* Confirmem-nos o quanto antes vossa adesão, encomendando Missas, prometendo orações, etc., fazendo clic em:

ConfirmamosMissa/ServicoReligioso e/ou ConfirmamosOraçoesPreces incluindo local, data e, se o desejarem, outros detalhes.

* Irmãos ibero-americanos e homens e mulheres de boa vontade, de outras regiões do mundo, que leiam esta mensagem e a ela adiram: que a Providência os recompense com o cêntuplo já nesta terra!

Com a maior consideração e estima,

Renato Gómez - Coordenador Geral

Comitê Organizador do Memorial Cubano

Tel. (1-786) 621-7505 Miami (FL) www memorialcubano org

PS.:

Em vossas orações e preces incluam também os homens, mulheres e crianças que morreram afogados no estreito da Flórida, tentando alcançar a liberdade. Seus nomes são em sua maioria desconhecidos e fontes autorizadas estimam que o número deles seja de muitas dezenas de milhares de cubanos.

Por fim, rezem pelos presos políticos que agonizam nos cárceres, como o médico Oscar Elias Biscet, pela economista Martha Beatriz Roque e milhares de outros irmãos cubanos detidos DesejoInfoPresosPoliticos. A seis anos da viagem de S.S. João Paulo II a Cuba (21-25 de janeiro de 1998), se continua contrariando o sonho papal de que a ilha-cárcere abra-se ao mundo.

LINKS PRIORITÁRIOS:

ConfirmoMissa/ServiçoReligioso e/ou ConfirmoOraçoesPreces (incluindo nome, cidade e, se desejar, outros detalhes)

MinhaAjuda (narre de que maneira poderá ajudar-nos a difundir esta iniciativa espiritual e humanitária: reenviando esta notícia a seus amigos, levando-a a jornalistas conhecidos, colocando-a no quadro de avisos de seu local de trabalho, etc.; pode incluir também sugestões).

MinhaOpiniao

OUTROS LINKS:

DesejoRecibirLinkMemorialCubano (para receber o link do web site sobre o Memorial Cubano, com nomes de todas as vítimas)

DesejoReceberInfoPresosPoliticos

ProximosEnvios:SoloEnEspañol

NextMails:OnlyInEnglish

Remover

A difusão deste e-mail é de exclusiva responsabilidade da agência humanitária Derechos Sin Fronteras (DSF).

Tradução: Graça Salgueiro

 

 

From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Thu Jan 22 17:21:43 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15607 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 17:21:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0MLuuib084876; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:56:56 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id i0MLuuLF084875; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:56:56 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from drummondgroup.com (drummondgroup.com [161.58.166.198]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0MLusib084863 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:56:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kyle@drummondgroup.com) Received: from KYLEDGILAPTOP (pcp01755874pcs.nash01.tn.comcast.net [68.52.238.39]) by drummondgroup.com (8.12.10/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i0MLulcp049198 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 14:56:48 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <200401222156.i0MLulcp049198@drummondgroup.com> From: "Kyle Meadors" To: Subject: other comments on AS2 draft Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 15:56:52 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: AcPU6c9xQtpuZ+oeQwmdUJcDet4rUgAHIU/gAV7c8uABrCfH0A== Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Do we have any additional comments on the draft? Kyle Meadors Drummond Group Inc. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.564 / Virus Database: 356 - Release Date: 1/19/2004 From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Fri Jan 23 05:15:14 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA22868 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 05:15:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0N9uiib082037; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 01:56:44 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id i0N9uilj082036; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 01:56:44 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from outbound1.sopragroup.com (outbound1.z-ptx-11.fr.sopragroup.com [81.80.239.198]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0N9ugib081994 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 01:56:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from aalberti@axway.com) Received: by outbound1.sopragroup.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/outbound-A02) with ESMTP id i0N9uR4b006200; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 10:56:28 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Subject: RE: other comments on AS2 draft Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 10:56:22 +0100 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: other comments on AS2 draft Thread-Index: AcPU6c9xQtpuZ+oeQwmdUJcDet4rUgAHIU/gAV7c8uABrCfH0AAYza2w From: "Alberti Antoine" To: "Kyle Meadors" Cc: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jan 2004 09:56:27.0328 (UTC) FILETIME=[2AF16400:01C3E197] X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.38 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by above.proper.com id i0N9uhib082030 Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I think section '4.2 Structure of an Internet EDI MIME message' could be enhanced with a little bit of text. Considering S/MIME, it is not obvious that a signature is done using a mutipart/signed with a sign-only part (which is a secondary choice in this RFC). Neither is it obvious whether it is encapsulated in an EnvelopedData to be enciphered or encapsulates an EnvelopedData that is then signed. What if a product uses a usual S/MIME v3 encapsulation, that is MIME(EnvelopedData(MIME(SignedData(MIME(CompressedData(MIME)))))), and adds the AS.2 fields if the outermost MIME header? This would remove any ambiguity at very low cost, so it seems interesting. Regards. > -----Message d'origine----- > De : owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org > [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org]De la part de Kyle Meadors > Envoyé : jeudi 22 janvier 2004 22:57 > À : ietf-ediint@imc.org > Objet : other comments on AS2 draft > > > > Do we have any additional comments on the draft? > > Kyle Meadors > Drummond Group Inc. > From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Fri Jan 23 06:50:36 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA26072 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 06:50:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0NBZVib092855; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 03:35:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id i0NBZVK6092854; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 03:35:31 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from drummondgroup.com (drummondgroup.com [161.58.166.198]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0NBZTib092847 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 03:35:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kyle@drummondgroup.com) Received: from KYLEDGILAPTOP (pcp01755874pcs.nash01.tn.comcast.net [68.52.238.39]) by drummondgroup.com (8.12.10/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i0NBZRFI009219; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 04:35:28 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <200401231135.i0NBZRFI009219@drummondgroup.com> From: "Kyle Meadors" To: "'Alberti Antoine'" Cc: Subject: RE: other comments on AS2 draft Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 05:35:34 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: AcPU6c9xQtpuZ+oeQwmdUJcDet4rUgAHIU/gAV7c8uABrCfH0AAYza2wAALm9aA= Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by above.proper.com id i0NBZUib092848 Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Alberti, Exactly what comments do you feel should be added? Something like this: A signed payload is contained within two parts of multipart structure. The first part is the document itself and the second part the pkcs-7 signature. Encryption, when present, always occurs after applying the signature. The hierarchy structure is 4.2 is similar to that found in the AS1 RFC 3335, which this draft is based off. In fact section 4.0 is nearly identical to 4.0 in RFC 3335. Kyle Meadors -----Original Message----- From: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org] On Behalf Of Alberti Antoine Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 3:56 AM To: Kyle Meadors Cc: ietf-ediint@imc.org Subject: RE: other comments on AS2 draft I think section '4.2 Structure of an Internet EDI MIME message' could be enhanced with a little bit of text. Considering S/MIME, it is not obvious that a signature is done using a mutipart/signed with a sign-only part (which is a secondary choice in this RFC). Neither is it obvious whether it is encapsulated in an EnvelopedData to be enciphered or encapsulates an EnvelopedData that is then signed. What if a product uses a usual S/MIME v3 encapsulation, that is MIME(EnvelopedData(MIME(SignedData(MIME(CompressedData(MIME)))))), and adds the AS.2 fields if the outermost MIME header? This would remove any ambiguity at very low cost, so it seems interesting. Regards. > -----Message d'origine----- > De : owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org > [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org]De la part de Kyle Meadors > Envoyé : jeudi 22 janvier 2004 22:57 > À : ietf-ediint@imc.org > Objet : other comments on AS2 draft > > > > Do we have any additional comments on the draft? > > Kyle Meadors > Drummond Group Inc. > --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.564 / Virus Database: 356 - Release Date: 1/19/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.564 / Virus Database: 356 - Release Date: 1/19/2004 From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Fri Jan 23 07:56:46 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA28572 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 07:56:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0NCgSib096127; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 04:42:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id i0NCgSoi096126; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 04:42:28 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from outbound1.sopragroup.com (outbound1.z-ptx-11.fr.sopragroup.com [81.80.239.198]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0NCgQib096119 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 04:42:27 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from aalberti@axway.com) Received: by outbound1.sopragroup.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/outbound-A02) with ESMTP id i0NCgF4Z021762; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 13:42:15 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: RE: other comments on AS2 draft Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 13:42:13 +0100 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: other comments on AS2 draft Thread-Index: AcPU6c9xQtpuZ+oeQwmdUJcDet4rUgAHIU/gAV7c8uABrCfH0AAYza2wAALm9aAAAxcaYA== From: "Alberti Antoine" To: "Kyle Meadors" Cc: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jan 2004 12:42:14.0036 (UTC) FILETIME=[53A49540:01C3E1AE] X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.38 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by above.proper.com id i0NCgSib096120 Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Yes, something like this would be perfect. I understand this is the same section as AS.1, but I don't feel it was enough in this specification, neither. The difference is that the latter is already an RFC and should not be changed. Of course it is not absolutely necessary to change this section, as it was enough in the previous RFC. But I think it would make this draft rather easier to understand at once. Antoine Alberti > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Kyle Meadors [mailto:kyle@drummondgroup.com] > Envoyé : vendredi 23 janvier 2004 12:36 > À : Alberti Antoine > Cc : ietf-ediint@imc.org > Objet : RE: other comments on AS2 draft > > > Alberti, > > Exactly what comments do you feel should be added? Something > like this: > > A signed payload is contained within two parts of multipart > structure. The > first part is the document itself and the second part the > pkcs-7 signature. > Encryption, when present, always occurs after applying the signature. > > The hierarchy structure is 4.2 is similar to that found in > the AS1 RFC 3335, > which this draft is based off. In fact section 4.0 is nearly > identical to > 4.0 in RFC 3335. > > Kyle Meadors > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org > [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org] > On Behalf Of Alberti Antoine > Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 3:56 AM > To: Kyle Meadors > Cc: ietf-ediint@imc.org > Subject: RE: other comments on AS2 draft > > > I think section '4.2 Structure of an Internet EDI MIME > message' could be > enhanced with a little bit of text. Considering S/MIME, it is > not obvious > that a signature is done using a mutipart/signed with a sign-only part > (which is a secondary choice in this RFC). Neither is it > obvious whether it > is encapsulated in an EnvelopedData to be enciphered or > encapsulates an > EnvelopedData that is then signed. > What if a product uses a usual S/MIME v3 encapsulation, that is > MIME(EnvelopedData(MIME(SignedData(MIME(CompressedData(MIME))) > ))), and adds > the AS.2 fields if the outermost MIME header? > This would remove any ambiguity at very low cost, so it seems > interesting. > Regards. > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > De : owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org > > [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org]De la part de Kyle Meadors > > Envoyé : jeudi 22 janvier 2004 22:57 > > À : ietf-ediint@imc.org > > Objet : other comments on AS2 draft > > > > > > > > Do we have any additional comments on the draft? > > > > Kyle Meadors > > Drummond Group Inc. > > > > > --- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.564 / Virus Database: 356 - Release Date: 1/19/2004 > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.564 / Virus Database: 356 - Release Date: 1/19/2004 > > >