RE: EDI over http?

[Marc Boyle <Marc.Boyle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Since you have already defined EDI over SMTP, why not also address
HTTP so the various groups that are already using it can 
converge on a standard. After this is accomplished, we can debate 
which method is better for "real-time" EDI. In other words, create your own
horse race and let the market decide (Beta or VHS).    

Marc Boyle

----------
From: 	Rik Drummond[SMTP:drummond@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 	Tuesday, June 24, 1997 9:03 PM
To: 	'Peter Rawlinson'
Cc: 	'ietf-ediint@xxxxxxx'
Subject: 	RE: EDI over http?

Should we focus on Http or stmp (as discussed below) for doing real time EDI?

What do others think?

Later, Rik

-----Original Message-----
From:	Peter Rawlinson [SMTP:PeterR@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent:	Friday, June 20, 1997 6:08 PM
To:	'Carl Hage'; 'ietf-ediint@xxxxxxx'
Subject:	RE: EDI over http?

Am I right in saying that http is a good, evolved standard anyway and
that most firewalls will allow message transport via port 80?  This
being the case, I really don't see why companies should go to the
expense of creating customised SMTP servers in support of real time
mail.

>-----Original Message-----
>From:	Carl Hage [SMTP:chage@xxxxxxxxx]
>Sent:	Friday, June 20, 1997 3:35 AM
>To:	ietf-ediint@xxxxxxx
>Subject:	RE: EDI over http?
>
>
>
>On Thu, 19 Jun 1997, Rik Drummond wrote:
>
>> This conversation seems to be a good kickoff for our next effort in this
>>wg. 
>> We so far have the requirements document and the secure smtp based edi
>document ready to submit to the iesg. Our next effort is real time edi.
>> The issue is -- bob, Carl and Lincoln have  touched on these in the last
>few memos -- 1) we need real time edi not smtp and 2) http is not and
>efficient
>> means to do this for high activity, large files. What are our options?
>
>One think that I think would be good would be to define usage guidelines
>for real-time smtp based EDI. In other words, use the draft RFC (ASN1)
>as the basis of the standard, but define requirements for an
>implementation that would qualify as "real time". What confuses people
>is that most SMTP implementations are general purpose queuing and
>store-and-forward implementations. A custom-built SMTP server (e.g.
>built behind a firewall for EDI use only), could be very efficient and
>fast, in comparison wo usual smtp/sendmail implementations.
>
>This approach would have the advantage of being compatible with
>any internet email system (incl. gateways).
>
>Also, it would be useful to define ways of standardizing usage of
>message headers (e.g. Subject:) so the off-line retrieve selected
>message features can be used via the usual POP/IMAP "mailbox"
>protocols with the ASN1 standard.
>
>After "real-time" use of SMTP, a lightweight direct EDI-EDI
>application messaging protocol could be defined, e.g. simple
>SSL or secured IP, with X12 or EDIFACT without overhead.
>
>