Re: EDI over http?

[chucks@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Chuck Shih)]

Dennis,

OBI is using HTTP but does not require a browser. It specifies a server
acting as a proxy be able to send a PO using HTTP. But OBI isn't the
only industry group using HTTP, the Gas and Automotive industries are
using it as well.

Dennis Freeman wrote:
> 
> I see that the OBI (Open Buying on the Internet) group has selected HTTP
> for its transfer protocol, presumably because they anticipate that most
> orders will be placed by a human using a browser. But even the
> transmission between the buyer's computer and the supplier's computer
> appears to require HTTP (Correct me if I misunderstand; the spec -- at
> http://www.supplyworks.com/obi -- is pretty large)
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >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.
> >>
> >>
> >