[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Current State: An EDIINT Short Status/ Request
At 08:47 PM 5/3/96 -0500, Rik Drummond wrote:
>After following the thread discussion, here is where I think we stand...
>Check me to make sure we are on the same track... Later....Rik
>>Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 04:40:59 -0500
>>From: email@example.com (Rik Drummond)
>>Subject: An EDIINT Short Status/ Request
>>It looks to me like we have three categories of issues we must address to
>>solve the whole
>> edi over internet issues:
>>1) Certificate Authorities,
>Do not worry about it now. Do as is recommended in IETF04.DOC.
>>2) pick MOSS, S/MIME or PGP/MIME, and
>MOSS is not a player. PGP/MIME and S/MIME are still in the running. Is
>S/MIME leading or not? It seems to be the developer's preference.
>Note: I just attended a meeting at Electronic Messaging Association (EMA)
>where S/MIME was demo'd on a MS Exchange system, Eudora and Premenos is
>doing it ASAP. I talked with Harbinger they are heavily focused on S/MIME.
>I talked with Supply Tech they have MOSS operational.
>The integration of S/MIME to Windows was very slick and very user friendly
>for key generation, key management and signing and encrypting messages
>-- I am not sure of the tool kit's guts, but it looked to be a visual basic
>implementation. I came away very impressed.
I still consider S/MIME vaporware until it is available to all users and is
proven in the field.
How can we recommend vaporware?
I have both an educational, academic, and professional background in
engineering and love the profession dearly - I therefore feel obligated and
entitled to criticize a charactistic of engineers that is being displayed
here: it is the love of something new and whizbang regardless of its
I am also a business professional and this side of me says that you stay
away from the "whizbang" until somebody proves it works (i.e. stay away from
those alpha and beta versions).
I CANNOT RECOMMEND S/MIME AS AN INTERNET EDI TOOL AT THIS TIME. My money is
still on PGP for the next 6-12 months.
>>3) handle the issue of Delivery, read receipts, Nonrepudiation of Delivery
>>and Non repudiation of Receipt. If we solve these three areas we have
>>solved the problem of EDI over Internet in my view.
> I am not clear on this one. I personally think we should extend the
>existing RFC functionality and implement a generic NRR of receipt for MIME
>which we can use for EDI. I searched the literature a little, I do not
>think it is a big deal at all. (What did you find Carl?)
SOmething new here for the future is one thing we can contribute! I am in
all favor of doing this if you and Carl think it can be done.
>>Carl Hage and I have discussed him investigating and recommending how we
>>do #3 for the Internet Transport -- which means MIME based Status
>>messages. If you have input lets get it on the listserv.
>>We must also do a comparison between those in #2 if we are going to make a
>>choice. Many translator vendors seem to be focusing on the S/MIME. MOSS
>>does not seem to be going anywhere. We need several people to compare the
>>technologies in #2. I will help. Anybody else?
>>Have a nice weekend....Later...Rik
>I have been very impressed with the progress made to date. Our effort is
>really moving...We all should be very pleased with the contributions ....
>Nice job one and all!
>| Rik Drummond - The Drummond Group |
>| 5008 Bentwood Ct., Ft. Worth, TX 76132 USA |
>| Voice: 817 294 7339 Fax: 817 294 7950 |
| David Darnell
| SysTrends, Inc.
| Arizona EC/EDI Roundtable
| 1850 East Carver Road
| Tempe, AZ 85284
| Tel (602)838-5316
| Fax (602)897-8032