[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Split within EDIINT: Multiple versions of AS2


In message <GJEAKDBCGBOFGCFOCMLMGEKADNAA.dick@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Dick Brooks <dick@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes 

It seems clear from the comments provided that Cyclone Software (represented
by Dale Moberg and Gary Crough) and Rik Drummond oppose a single AS2
standard for exchanging EDI/XML data.

On the other hand we've heard from Andrew Strickland, Mike Costa, Steve
Lowery, Wayne Mackintosh, and myself who appear in favor of developing a
single AS2 standard for exchanging EDI/XML data.

For what it's worth I would tend to agree, but...

I believe we must resolve this issue before we can move on and address the
deeper technical issues.

What I'm not clear about is just how incompatible the two "subsets" are. Are we talking fundamental, irreconcilable differences here? Or is it just a matter of tweaking a few bits and pieces of one or other subset to bring them together?

[Snip]

I realise that we have two very substantial groups of users who will each support their own particular variant and will be loath to go to the time, trouble and expense of making alterations since they have production systems already in the field. But I would point out that both groups have "jumped the gun" and based their implementations on what is still only a draft. This sad situation has been brought about because there is a clear need for an EDIINT standard but the path to RFC status has been long-winded. Issues such as these will presumably only serve to delay it still further.

I think that we should establish AS2 as a strong technical standard that does not pander to either group. After all, their applications will not suddenly stop working just because they can no longer call their software "AS2-compliant".

In reply to Gary Crough's comment that we already have a split between AS1 and AS2, I would say that in this case there is a clear technical requirement for a split because of the differing requirements of SMTP vs. HTTP and the fact that HTTP is not fully MIME-compliant. In an ideal world we would not need the AS1(RFC3335)/AS2 split either but history has meant that this split was the starting point for the EDIINT effort. It is something that EDIINT had no control over. The split within AS2 is different: I don't think there is a fundamental technical need for it and we are at the cusp in history where we can avoid it if we so wish.

Chris.

--
Chris Davenport
Davros Computer Systems