RE: HTTP POST Responses

[Peter Rawlinson <PeterR@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Rik,
I think this is the right time to do this.  From the volume of mails
being exchanged currently between the group, there seem to be many
opinions both for and against http and mail.  Let's have a more
formalised assessment of these technologies.

Pete

>-----Original Message-----
>From:	Rik Drummond [SMTP:drummond@xxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent:	Wednesday, June 25, 1997 9:49 AM
>To:	'Carl Hage'; ietf-ediint@xxxxxxx
>Subject:	RE: HTTP POST Responses
>
>Lets go after this in a formal manner. Lets build a grid of the key
>requirements for this protocol and the compare how well smtp, http/post and
>other fit.
>
>We did a whole lot of work (Lincoln sent a copy of the these requirements to
>the list last week) last fall on the requirements. Lets quickly review them
>and the build the matrix....or is it too early for this approach?
>
>Later, Rik
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From:	Carl Hage [SMTP:chage@xxxxxxxxx]
>Sent:	Wednesday, June 25, 1997 2:39 AM
>To:	ietf-ediint@xxxxxxx
>Subject:	Re: HTTP POST Responses
>
>
>
>On Tue, 24 Jun 1997, Diane Biegel wrote:
>
>> We are talking about an HTTP POST from a batch browser to a web server
>> running a CGI.  We have an "http envelope" from which a "http response"
>> is created.  The "http envelope" contains encrypted X12 data.  The
>> receiving server sends an "http response" with a timestamp, character
>> count, status etc.
>
>This is what I would have imagined an HTTP based exchange. I don't
>really see the advantage of using the batch-browser->http server->
>CGI gateway->EDI... It seems too complex to me. Also, you can't
>compare a corporate ccMail gateway with a HTTP server. EDI email
>should be on a separate machine, in most cases.
>
>Given an appropriate configuration of the usual SMTP system, what
>does HTTP buy?
>