Subject: profiles in AS2

From: "Kyle Meadors" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 11:04:17 -0600

I am needing the opinion of the AS2 community on the use of a feature
profiles within AS2. Back in 2002, compression was added as an extra
feature. Using "AS2–Version: 1.1" in a message indicated the UA could
support compression even if the actual message did not contain the
compressed envelope. This assisted implementers in knowing if their trading
partners could support compression. 
  
Moving to the present, users are requesting new features. These include I–Ds
for Reliability (from GS1), Multiple–Attachments (oil & gas users) and
Certificate Exchange Messaging (Wal–mart, P&G and others GS1 companies).
Given AS2's adoption, I am sure there will be others in the future. 
  
My question to those on this elist is how to do move forward with new
features. What do we do to insure only those who support a feature receive
it (e.g., only sending CEM message to trading partners who support that
profile)? Also, can anything be done to insure backward compatibility to
keep new Feature Header messages from being sent to & breaking older,
existing implementations (e.g. older implementation errors gracefully when
getting an unrecognized MA message). 
  
Here are some options. I would like to hear your thoughts on what is best or
other ideas. 

1. Use AS2–Version header to indicate UA support of profiles (e.g. 1.2
indicates CEM, 1.3 indicates CEM, Reliability). Works like compression (e.g.
“1.2” indicates capability of CEM but not an actual CEM message).

2. Use a new header, e.g. EDIINT–Features. The features header shows all
features supported by UA (e.g. EDIINT–Features: CEM, multiple–attachment)
but like AS2–Version does not indicate every message contains profile.

3. Use a new header for each feature which is present ONLY in the message
using that feature. For example, “CEM–Profile” for CEM messages. This could
allow receiving UA to filter in only profiles it recognizes.

4. Create a “Capability Query” AS2 Message which returns a Capability MDN.
MDN indicates what features receiving UA can support.

Kyle Meadors

Principal, Test Process

Drummond Group Inc.

615.212.0826

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.10/189 - Release Date: 11/30/2005

---

From: "Richard Bigelow" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 14:06:30 -0800

These are my comments.  Option 2 is preferred.  This memo essentially
supports John Duker's memo of Dec. 5, Features Profile in AS2.

1. This option requires that implementers of feature 1.n also implement
all earlier features.  Is that reasonable?  What if 1.5 is difficult and
many vendors don't want to do it, but many want to support 1.6?  Not
recommended.

2.  The features header allows the partner A receiving the message to
know the other partner's (B's) capabilities.  So when A sends to B, A
knows what is allowed.  A can also check B's AS2-version; 1.1 does not
allow any of the controlled features, but does allow compression.  A
should update some state for every message received from B.  B might
stop supporting some feature.  Recommended.

A possible variant of (2) is that a partner could send some message to
all its trading partners when its capabilities change.  This message
would have headers only, no content.  It might be useful to send this
capabilities message to partners that would rarely receive normal
messages.

3. This option allows receivers to ignore messages they don't
understand, and to detect those messages without looking for unknown
headers.  But it does not provide a mechanism for the sender to know
whether a receiver can receive the message.  Suppose we had done
compression this way.  A could send a compressed file to B, and B could
ignore it based on the feature header, but then the file is lost.  B
could return a new MDN code indicating unsupported-feature, and A could
then send the uncompressed file, in this example.  In other cases, A
would have to use some other mechanism.  A could remember that B
rejected the file and not try that feature again, but how would A know
if B upgraded and can now support the feature?  The original intent of
the features header was that the sender could know in advance if the
receiver supports the feature.  3 is not recommended.

4. Before sending a message to B, A should ask B for B's capabilities,
and check if B supports the feature.  Since B might stop supporting a
feature, A should ask each time.  This is ok for rare messages, like
CEM, but not for common ones, like Multiple Attachments.  Not
recommended.

None of these protocols fully addresses the initial case.  Before any
messages are exchanged, how do the partners know each other's
capabilities?  Each partner must assume that the other supports only the
basic 1.0 AS2 protocol.   Hopefully, they will be able to exchange
normal messages, which will contain at least the 1.2 version header.
They can then use option 2 to discover each other capabilities.  This
probably works for most features.  For CEM, either they must first
exchange test messages that are unencrypted and unsigned to establish
CEM capability, or exchange initial certificates manually.

Alternatively, the partners would configure each other manually the
first time.  Thereafter, they would be automatically updated on each
other's capabilities.

Richard Bigelow
Inovis
[email-masked]

________________________________

From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Kyle Meadors
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 9:04 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: profiles in AS2

I am needing the opinion of the AS2 community on the use of a feature
profiles within AS2. Back in 2002, compression was added as an extra
feature. Using "AS2-Version: 1.1" in a message indicated the UA could
support compression even if the actual message did not contain the
compressed envelope. This assisted implementers in knowing if their
trading partners could support compression. 
  
Moving to the present, users are requesting new features. These include
I-Ds for Reliability (from GS1), Multiple-Attachments (oil & gas users)
and Certificate Exchange Messaging (Wal-mart, P&G and others GS1
companies). Given AS2's adoption, I am sure there will be others in the
future. 
  
My question to those on this elist is how to do move forward with new
features. What do we do to insure only those who support a feature
receive it (e.g., only sending CEM message to trading partners who
support that profile)? Also, can anything be done to insure backward
compatibility to keep new Feature Header messages from being sent to &
breaking older, existing implementations (e.g. older implementation
errors gracefully when getting an unrecognized MA message). 
  
Here are some options. I would like to hear your thoughts on what is
best or other ideas. 

1. Use AS2-Version header to indicate UA support of profiles (e.g. 1.2
indicates CEM, 1.3 indicates CEM, Reliability). Works like compression
(e.g. "1.2" indicates capability of CEM but not an actual CEM message).

2. Use a new header, e.g. EDIINT-Features. The features header shows all
features supported by UA (e.g. EDIINT-Features: CEM,
multiple-attachment) but like AS2-Version does not indicate every
message contains profile.

3. Use a new header for each feature which is present ONLY in the
message using that feature. For example, "CEM-Profile" for CEM messages.
This could allow receiving UA to filter in only profiles it recognizes.

4. Create a "Capability Query" AS2 Message which returns a Capability
MDN. MDN indicates what features receiving UA can support.

Kyle Meadors

Principal, Test Process

Drummond Group Inc.

615.212.0826

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.10/189 - Release Date:
11/30/2005

---

From: "Gijsbert in 't Veld" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 09:43:14 +0100

I'm in favor of the features header in combination with the version
indicator, but the features (capabilities) should always be negotiated
during session setup. For each capability, the lowest "level" wins. So
if A sets up a connection with B and requests "Multiple attachments=Yes"
then B could say "Multiple attachments=No". The result will then be
"Multiple attachments=No".

Also, the mininum AS2 protocol version supported should be 1.0. All the
AS2 implementions should be backwards compatible. Detecting an older
version then the one that will support feature negotiation always means
that there are no features to be negotiated.

That way it's very flexible. This is how it's done in other major
protocols as well (for example OFTP).

Best,

Gijsbert in 't Veld

Covast CTO

From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Kyle Meadors
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 11:21 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: profiles in AS2

Not a lot of comments on this thread. But to summarize...

3 in favor of Option 2 (Features header) and use of AS2-Version 1.2 

1 in favor Option 3 where filtering is done on a message

Still does not fully address the initial start-up conditions as Richard
pointed out, but perhaps that just can not be done without some manual
setup.

Since this EDIINT WG will likely be closing relatively soon, I hope we
can get some more to weigh in on this. Do others object to Option 2
(with AS2-Version 1.2)?

For those AS2 vendors supporting Option 2, would this impact your
product, including those deployed in existing supply chains? Are their
significant backward compatibility problems with this choice?

Kyle Meadors

DGI

From: Tim McCarthy [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 9:14 AM
To: Kyle Meadors; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: profiles in AS2

Seems to me that a combination of features 2 and 4 would provide
everything we'd need.

From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Richard Bigelow
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 5:07 PM
To: Kyle Meadors; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: profiles in AS2

Richard Bigelow
Inovis

  

 

Kyle Meadors

Principal, Test Process

Drummond Group Inc.

615.212.0826

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/193 - Release Date:
12/6/2005

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.0/203 - Release Date:
12/15/2005

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 17:36:08 -0500

I prefer Richard Bigelow's suggestion of an addition (or variant) to 
Option 2 vs. negotiating during a session setup (which could be a 
significant change to existing AS2 processes).  An originator could send a message to all its trading partners when its 
capabilities change.  This message would have headers only, no content, 
and would be sent only to partners who are using AS2-Version 1.2 or 
greater (indicating they support the Feature Header). This would ensure 
that partners would be notified of new capabilities prior to the 
originator using the new capability. 

As a fail-safe, all partners should send the Feature Header to partners 
who are using AS2-Version 1.2 or greater with every message, in case the 
Header-only message is lost or not processed.

This would require software implementations to keep state information 
(probably in a partner profile) recording the AS2-Version, and indication 
of which Features each partner supports.

Do other AS2 software vendors object to Option 2 (with AS2-Version 1.2)?

Can anyone see any backward compatibility problems with Option 2 (using 
the AS2-Version 1.2 indicator) in communicating with version 1.0 or 1.1 
products?

Would existing AS2 products (or products already supporting Option 2 in 
test) handle a Header-only message?

best regards,
John Duker
Procter & Gamble

"Gijsbert in 't Veld" <[email-masked]>
Sent by: [email-masked]
12/16/2005 03:43 AM

        To:     "Kyle Meadors" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
        cc: 
        Subject:        RE: profiles in AS2
I'm in favor of the features header in combination with the version 
indicator, but the features (capabilities) should always be negotiated 
during session setup. For each capability, the lowest "level" wins. So if 
A sets up a connection with B and requests "Multiple attachments=Yes" then 
B could say "Multiple attachments=No". The result will then be "Multiple 
attachments=No".

 
Best,
Gijsbert in 't Veld
Covast CTO
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Kyle Meadors
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 11:21 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: profiles in AS2
 Not a lot of comments on this thread. But to summarize?
 
3 in favor of Option 2 (Features header) and use of AS2?Version 1.2 
1 in favor Option 3 where filtering is done on a message
 
Still does not fully address the initial start?up conditions as Richard 
pointed out, but perhaps that just can not be done without some manual 
setup.
 
Since this EDIINT WG will likely be closing relatively soon, I hope we can 
get some more to weigh in on this. Do others object to Option 2 (with 
AS2?Version 1.2)?
 
For those AS2 vendors supporting Option 2, would this impact your product, 
including those deployed in existing supply chains? Are their significant 
backward compatibility problems with this choice?
 
Kyle Meadors
DGI

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Richard Bigelow
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 5:07 PM
To: Kyle Meadors; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: profiles in AS2

 
2.  The features header allows the partner A receiving the message to know 
the other partner's (B's) capabilities.  So when A sends to B, A knows 
what is allowed.  A can also check B's AS2-version; 1.1 does not allow any 
of the controlled features, but does allow compression.  A should update 
some state for every message received from B.  B might stop supporting 
some feature.  Recommended.
 
A possible variant of (2) is that a partner could send some message to all 
its trading partners when its capabilities change.  This message would 
have headers only, no content.  It might be useful to send this 
capabilities message to partners that would rarely receive normal 
messages.
 
3. This option allows receivers to ignore messages they don't understand, 
and to detect those messages without looking for unknown headers.  But it 
does not provide a mechanism for the sender to know whether a receiver can 
receive the message.  Suppose we had done compression this way.  A could 
send a compressed file to B, and B could ignore it based on the feature 
header, but then the file is lost.  B could return a new MDN code 
indicating unsupported-feature, and A could then send the uncompressed 
file, in this example.  In other cases, A would have to use some other 
mechanism.  A could remember that B rejected the file and not try that 
feature again, but how would A know if B upgraded and can now support the 
feature?  The original intent of the features header was that the sender 
could know in advance if the receiver supports the feature.  3 is not 
recommended.
 
4. Before sending a message to B, A should ask B for B's capabilities, and 
check if B supports the feature.  Since B might stop supporting a feature, 
A should ask each time.  This is ok for rare messages, like CEM, but not 
for common ones, like Multiple Attachments.  Not recommended.
 
None of these protocols fully addresses the initial case.  Before any 
messages are exchanged, how do the partners know each other's 
capabilities?  Each partner must assume that the other supports only the 
basic 1.0 AS2 protocol.   Hopefully, they will be able to exchange normal 
messages, which will contain at least the 1.2 version header.  They can 
then use option 2 to discover each other capabilities.  This probably 
works for most features.  For CEM, either they must first exchange test 
messages that are unencrypted and unsigned to establish CEM capability, or 
exchange initial certificates manually.
 
Alternatively, the partners would configure each other manually the first 
time.  Thereafter, they would be automatically updated on each other's 
capabilities.
 
Richard Bigelow
Inovis

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Kyle Meadors
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 9:04 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: profiles in AS2
 
feature. Using "AS2?Version: 1.1" in a message indicated the UA could 
  
Moving to the present, users are requesting new features. These include 
I?Ds for Reliability (from GS1), Multiple?Attachments (oil & gas users) 
and Certificate Exchange Messaging (Wal?mart, P&G and others GS1 
companies). Given AS2's adoption, I am sure there will be others in the 
future. 

Here are some options. I would like to hear your thoughts on what is best 
or other ideas. 
 
1. Use AS2?Version header to indicate UA support of profiles (e.g. 1.2 
indicates CEM, 1.3 indicates CEM, Reliability). Works like compression 
(e.g. "1.2" indicates capability of CEM but not an actual CEM message).
 
2. Use a new header, e.g. EDIINT?Features. The features header shows all 
features supported by UA (e.g. EDIINT?Features: CEM, multiple?attachment) 
but like AS2?Version does not indicate every message contains profile.
 
3. Use a new header for each feature which is present ONLY in the message 
using that feature. For example, "CEM?Profile" for CEM messages. This 
could allow receiving UA to filter in only profiles it recognizes.
 
4. Create a "Capability Query" AS2 Message which returns a Capability MDN. MDN indicates what features receiving UA can support.

Kyle Meadors
Principal, Test Process
Drummond Group Inc.
615.212.0826

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/193 - Release Date: 12/6/2005

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.0/203 - Release Date: 12/15/2005

---

From: "Dale Moberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 08:49:13 -0700

The consensus seems to be that it should be possible to support some AS2
features independently, rather than cumulatively. Although I think the
combinations of features of Reliability, CEM, and Multipart could be
coded up by 8 numbers, if more end user requirements get specified, that
encoding would become inconvenient to support. So moving to an
EDIINT-Features header seems to be a reasonable way to advertise
capabilities.

Would AS1, AS2 and AS3 all use this header? I assume that CEM and
attachments are OK, but Reliability mainly pertains to AS2. Also, would
AS1 have to add an "X-" preface to the header? (So we would have
somemething like "X-EdiintFeatures" as the header value?)

I take it that there is some concern about the waste of sending this
header every time and that partially motivates inventing new behavior to
supply these values in a MDN (when requested). While that might be more
elegant, I guess the logic would be that you can only use that form of
request when the original has an AS2-Version of "1.2"? My preference
here is not to try to develop option 4 into a new capability query and
response pattern, but just accept that the Ediint-Features header may
waste a few bytes per message. 

How will existing applications respond to this? Presumably they would
(or should) ignore an included "EdiintFeatures" header and also never
send one. If they never sent one (and their ASx-version was either 1.0
or 1.1), then they must not be sent multiparts or CEM. In that case,
messages with the new features would not even be sent to older
applications and could not cause them to malfunction. So it should be
stated that you may not use these features unless the other side both
has a version value greater than 1.1 and also has included the feature
in its EdiintFeatures header.

What should be said about a 1.2 version interoperating with a 1.1
version? Since a 1.1 level app. would be entitled to ignore a message
with a higher version, should a 1.2 app be advised to be configurable to
advertise itself as a 1.1 version to promote interoperation?

What should be done about detecting a change (upgrade) of versions when
the other side begins sending the higher "1.2" value? Are
implementations expected to check the version or is this left to the
implementation? Richard B. says "A should update some state for every
message received from B" I think it would be sufficient to check the
state and update if a change is noticed. (Maybe that is what Richard
meant though.) I suppose an empty message could be sent to announce a
change in capabilities, but again only to ediint agents with a version
greater than 1.1.

So far the specifications have not really required that the version be
checked for every message. For example, the AS3 draft says 

    The AS3-Version header is a header which is required only if the
value

    of the header is not "1.0".  Its purpose is to allow systems to 

    determine which version of this specification, should the

    specification evolve over time, the sender of a document has used to

    package the document. A user agent MUST NOT reject a message if the 

    version header is missing.

    AS3-Version: 1*DIGIT . 1*DIGIT

    A version header value of "1.1" indicates an implementation can

    support EDIINT data compression [18]. A user agent MUST NOT send 

    compressed messages to trading partners who do not use a version 

    header of "1.1" or greater. 

It seems to me that versions greater than 1.1 will need to check the
version values for every message. If a version header is missing, it is
version 1.0.

From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Kyle Meadors
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 3:21 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: profiles in AS2

Kyle Meadors

DGI

Richard Bigelow
Inovis

  

 

Kyle Meadors

Principal, Test Process

Drummond Group Inc.

615.212.0826

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 16:13:19 -0500

I agree that a 1.1 version should accept messages from a 1.2 version.  I 
think that it is the responsibility of the 1.2 (or greater) version to 
recognize that it is communicating with a lower (1.0 or 1.1) version and 
(a) not send the Features Header to either, and
(b) not use compression with the 1.0 version.

So versions greater than 1.1 will need to check the version values for 
every message, and if the version received is greater than 1.1, the 
receiver should check for a Features Header. The receiver should update 
state information contained in the Version Header and Features Header for 
that partner (if the state info changed).

John Duker
Procter & Gamble

"Richard Bigelow" <[email-masked]>
Sent by: [email-masked]
12/19/2005 01:56 PM

        To:     "Dale Moberg" <[email-masked]>, "Kyle Meadors" 
<[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
        cc: 
        Subject:        RE: profiles in AS2
Concerning a 1.2 version interoperating with a 1.1 version:  The 1.1 
version should accept the 1.2 messages.  The compression draft says that a 
version of 1.1 or greater indicates compression. 
 
I have some concern about Kyle's comment that this WG may be closing soon. 
 Is this in response to IETF's requirement to make progress on AS3?  I 
hope that this WG will continue.  We have some proposals on the table, 
including Reliability and CEM and perhaps Profiles in the future.

Richard Bigelow
Inovis

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Dale Moberg
Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2005 7:49 AM
To: Kyle Meadors; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: profiles in AS2
 
The consensus seems to be that it should be possible to support some AS2 
features independently, rather than cumulatively. Although I think the 
combinations of features of Reliability, CEM, and Multipart could be coded 
up by 8 numbers, if more end user requirements get specified, that 
encoding would become inconvenient to support. So moving to an 
EDIINT-Features header seems to be a reasonable way to advertise 
capabilities.

I take it that there is some concern about the waste of sending this 
header every time and that partially motivates inventing new behavior to 
supply these values in a MDN (when requested). While that might be more 
elegant, I guess the logic would be that you can only use that form of 
request when the original has an AS2-Version of "1.2"? My preference here 
is not to try to develop option 4 into a new capability query and response 
pattern, but just accept that the Ediint-Features header may waste a few 
bytes per message. 
 
How will existing applications respond to this? Presumably they would (or 
should) ignore an included "EdiintFeatures" header and also never send 
one. If they never sent one (and their ASx-version was either 1.0 or 1.1), 
then they must not be sent multiparts or CEM. In that case, messages with 
the new features would not even be sent to older applications and could 
not cause them to malfunction. So it should be stated that you may not use 
these features unless the other side both has a version value greater than 
1.1 and also has included the feature in its EdiintFeatures header.
 
What should be said about a 1.2 version interoperating with a 1.1 version? 
Since a 1.1 level app. would be entitled to ignore a message with a higher 
version, should a 1.2 app be advised to be configurable to advertise 
itself as a 1.1 version to promote interoperation?
 
What should be done about detecting a change (upgrade) of versions when 
the other side begins sending the higher "1.2" value? Are implementations 
expected to check the version or is this left to the implementation? 
Richard B. says "A should update some state for every message received 
from B" I think it would be sufficient to check the state and update if a 
change is noticed. (Maybe that is what Richard meant though.) I suppose an 
empty message could be sent to announce a change in capabilities, but 
again only to ediint agents with a version greater than 1.1.

    The AS3-Version header is a header which is required only if the value

 

 

Kyle Meadors
DGI

 

 

 

Richard Bigelow
Inovis

  

 

 

Kyle Meadors
Principal, Test Process
Drummond Group Inc.
615.212.0826

---

From: "John Koehring" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 15:23:34 -0700

I will also chime in in favor of Kyle's original option 2.
 
However, I will disagree with John's latest point (a). Well behaved
software should ignore any headers it does not understand or support.
Therefore, I see no problem with a 1.2 (or greater) version system
always sending the EDIINT-Features header.
 
John Koehring
Cyclone Commerce, Inc.

  _____  

From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of [email-masked]
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 14:13
To: [email-masked]; Richard Bigelow; Dale Moberg; Kyle Meadors
Subject: RE: profiles in AS2

So versions greater than 1.1 will need to check the version values for
every message, and if the version received is greater than 1.1, the
receiver should check for a Features Header. The receiver should update
state information contained in the Version Header and Features Header
for that partner (if the state info changed). 

John Duker 
Procter & Gamble 

12/19/2005 01:56 PM 

        To:        "Dale Moberg" <[email-masked]>, "Kyle
Meadors" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]> 
        cc:         
        Subject:        RE: profiles in AS2

Concerning a 1.2 version interoperating with a 1.1 version:  The 1.1
version should accept the 1.2 messages.  The compression draft says that
a version of 1.1 or greater indicates compression.   
  
I have some concern about Kyle's comment that this WG may be closing
soon.  Is this in response to IETF's requirement to make progress on
AS3?  I hope that this WG will continue.  We have some proposals on the
table, including Reliability and CEM and perhaps Profiles in the future.

Richard Bigelow
Inovis
 <mailto:[email-masked]> [email-masked] 

  _____  

[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Dale Moberg

  

  

  

  _____  

  

  
  
Kyle Meadors 
DGI 

  _____  

  _____  

  

  

  
  
Richard Bigelow
Inovis
 <mailto:[email-masked]> [email-masked] 

  _____  

 

    

  

Kyle Meadors 
Principal, Test Process 
Drummond Group Inc. 
615.212.0826