Is the goal really "EDI" over the internet?

[carl@xxxxxxxxx (Carl Hage)]

The goal is "EDI" over the internet, but it would be stupid to define
messaging protocols that wouldn't apply to other message content, but with
similar security/reliability needs.

tjeffers@xxxxxxx wrote:
: ... What you are
: proposing is really secure internet transmission of data regardless of
: format (proprietary, EDI, etc..). Should the charter of the working
: group be changed since EDI is really not a consideration?

Personally, I think splitting the RFC would be appropriate. There should
be a secure/reliable email transaction  process, independent of the
content of data exchange, e.g. application/EDIxxxx or whatever.

However, there are a few EDI specific parts, e.g. using RFC1767 to
wrap X12/EDIFACT data, and the protocol of bundling one interchange
into one RFC822 message.

Most of the RFC could be independent of terms like "EDI", with a
paragraph at the end for EDI specific definitions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Hage                                              C. Hage Associates
<email:carl@xxxxxxxxx> Voice/Fax: 1-408-244-8410       1180 Reed Ave #51
<http://www.chage.com/chage/>                          Sunnyvale, CA 94086