Re: EDI over http?

["Matthew James Gering" <mgering@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> 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 think we should concentrate on application protocols. Everything will be
based on the IP stack -- IPsec and IPv6 should both have full backwards
compatibility with IPv4, and they are really outside the scope of an
application protocol.

SSL should be on the feature list of the protocol comparisons -- i.e. SSL
enabled, SSL capable. Any point-to-point application protocol is SSL
capable.

PPTP was mentioned by someone previously. This is entirely related to
private relationships and firewalls, and should be outside the scope of our
application protocol discussion. SSL is more suitable for application
tunnels, and PPTP's security is shaky at best if used alone.

So, let's concentrate on current /application/ protocols, such as (E)SMTP,
HTTP, FTP, NNTP and IMAP4, as well as potential new protocol proposals and
evaluate the feature and functionality spec of other proprietary protocols
from which a new internet-standard protocol may draw upon.

	Matt