Re: EDI over http?

[chucks@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Chuck Shih)]

Marc,

I tend to agree with you here. It seems, correctly or not, that SMTP has
the stigma of being a store and forward protocol. Already, a number of
industry groups (Gas, Automotive, OBI) are using HTTP. Running large
files using HTTP does not seem to be a problem, and I have not seen the
list participants require some of the more "sophisticated" functions
(such as enumerated lists, service queries to the server) in the initial
requirements document.

I think the MIME and S/MIME formats already defined in the earlier work
be carried over to HTTP. That would be my vote at this point.     
Marc Boyle wrote:
> 
> 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.
> >
> >