Subject: RE: EDIINT AS2-U, AS2-G and a separate conformance document?

From: "Dale Moberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 13:18:04 -0700

I agree with Pete Byrne's naming solution. 
This issue is not primarily a technical one.
However, the new AS2 document contains the functionality
that is by far the more widely used and identified as "AS2".

Also, if there is a conformance 
document (and I think it is not essential to have one),
it should basically say that a product may implement AS1 AS2 and/or AS3.
If it does AS2 without AS1, however, it probably will
not be able to return MDNs asynchronously over email.
That aside, a product that does all is expected to interoperate
with products that do a subset, and conversely. 

In general, products that each do
a subset should be able to be configured to 
interoperate provided that the two subsets have an intersection
that isn't empty!

Dale Moberg

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 11:05 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: EDIINT AS2-U, AS2-G and a separate conformance document?

Dr. Brooks, et al,

I agree with Crough (20030115, 20030116, 20030117), Moberg (20030116,
20030117, 20030121), and you (20030128): create two documents, one from
the version 12 draft and one based on the version 11 draft but to be
edited and republished.

However, I am against the notion of AS2-U and AS2-G!!  The former
version is used by many more than just the UCC and the latter version is
named for a group that no longer exists!  Let's recognize reality and
move straight to draft-ietf-as2-12.txt and to draft-ietf-as3-1.txt and
be done with it! That way, people can concentrate on conforming to the
one 'standard' predominately used in their industry.  With two ASs, is
there a need for a conformance document?

Pete

---------------------------------
Pete Byrne
EC/EDI Group, FirstEnergy Services
Electronic Communications for the Efficient Delivery of Information
Tel: 610-939-4334
Fax: 330-315-8465
[email-masked]

                      "Dick Brooks"

                      <[email-masked]        To:       "Pete Byrne"
<[email-masked]>                                                 
                      om>                      cc:       (bcc: Pete
Byrne/GPU)                                                         
                                               Subject:  EDIINT AS2-U,
AS2-G and a separate conformance document                       
                      2003-01-29 11:37

                      AM

                      Please respond to

                      dick

Dr. Byrne,

How do you feel about the proposed compromise?

- Create two documents and call them AS2-U and AS2-G
- The draft produced by Rik and Dale will be called AS2-U
- A new draft will be created for AS2-G, which will be largely based on
the text that was removed from AS2 draft 11.
- Following the MIME model, the group will create a conformance document
along the lines of RFC 2049. This will spell out in detail what is
required to be AS2 conformant.

Dick Brooks
Systrends, Inc
7855 South River Parkway, Suite 111
Tempe, Arizona 85284
Web: www.systrends.com <http://www.systrends.com>
Phone:480.756.6777,Mobile:602-684-1484,eFax:240-352-0714