RE: EDI over http?

[Rik Drummond <drummond@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Mat good questions. I don't have all the answers either, I will have to go back and re-read the spec.'s myself. I think it is time to build a comparison grid and compare the options offered so far: http, imap, ftp, ip, ssl, and such.

I also think we should make sure that people form the gas, petroleum, automotive and retail are part of the discussion.

So time for the comparison grid and getting others involved or not?

Do I have any offers to build the comparison grid from the requirements we developed last year and in Lincoln's email a couple of weeks ago?



later, Rik

-----Original Message-----
From:	Matthew James Gering [SMTP:mgering@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent:	Thursday, July 03, 1997 3:04 PM
To:	ietf-ediint@xxxxxxx
Subject:	Re: EDI over http?


> HTTP is not a server to server protocol in the way that the POST command
is being
> used in some EDI implementations either.  
>
> IMAP4 allows submission and retrieval of messages/transactions between a
client 
> and a server...... so a two way exchange between two companies will look
like this.
>
>
>	Company1		 		Company 2
>	-----------------				------------------
> EDI Translator--imap4 client    ------->  	imap4 server--EDI Translator
> EDI Translator--imap4 server   <------- 	Imap4 client-- EDI Translator
>
> what is wrong with that?

Well, I don't really support the use of HTTP either -- but that aside, what
does IMAP4 hold over HTTP (honest question, it's been a while since I've
thoroughly read the IMAP specs).

HTTP has the advantage of already having an SSL implementation, for
encryption and authentication. Not that you could not have IMAP4/SSL, but
I've seen no current libraries that support that yet.

HTTP libraries and commercial packages with API's are much more widely
available at this time than the same that support IMAP4.

HTTP is strongly developed and supported by the W3C, whereas IMAP is still
closely tied to the University of Washington (not that I've anything
against my almamater).

HTTP/1.2 has been optimized for "internetwork" usage, whereas IMAP is
designed for local usage -- how does IMAP handle network congestion and
latency? I know POP/3 handles it very badly.

	Matt