Subject: Split within EDIINT: Multiple versions of AS2

From: "Gary Crough" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 13:09:29 -0700

All,
	For some time now EDIINT has been split into AS1 and AS2.  These "subsets" did not upset anyone.  Why the uproar over a suggestion to create another subset?
	
	When UCC companies demand trading partners use EDIINT AS2 (and many do) they mean the EDIINT "AS2" subset certified by the UCC ... AS2 using S/MIME and compression options.  But within the energy industry "AS2" means PGP/MIME not S/MIME.
	AS2 subsets already exist.  The Energy industry (> 100 installations) uses one subset of EDIINT AS2 and the packaged goods, healthcare, financial, high technology and transportation industries (> 1000 installations) uses another; currently the two AS2 subsets are incompatible.  Pretending otherwise is creating considerable confusion in the user community.   

	Using Dale Moberg's proposed terms ...AS1, AS2 (UCC certified) and ASx (PGP version): there is no reason a vendor can't support EDIINT AS1, AS2 and ASx.  Such a vendor could claim to support all major subsets of EDIINT.  Further, such a vendor would create convergence ... enabling trading between industries which standardized on different subsets.  
	With clear subsets within the EDIINT specification, there is no requirement for a small company like iSoft, the WalMart AS2 vendor, to support AS1 or ASx since WalMart dictates UCC-certified AS2 interfaces.

Gary Crough
Cyclone Commerce, Inc. 
8388 E. Hartford Drive, Scottsdale, AZ 85255 
Office: 480-627-8780        Cell: 602-885-9010

---

From: "Dick Brooks" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 22:08:22 -0700

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.

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

Based on the comments provided thus far, there appears to be more support
behind developing a single AS2 standard. However we've only heard from a
relatively small subset of the EDIINT community.

I believe more community input is needed to help the EDIINT workgroup decide
how to proceed  - should the group develop one standard or multiple
standards to exchange EDI/XML data over HTTP?

Your opinions are important, please give the group the help it needs to make
the proper decision going forward.

Thanks,

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

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Gary Crough
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 1:09 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Split within EDIINT: Multiple versions of AS2

All,
	For some time now EDIINT has been split into AS1 and AS2.  These "subsets"
did not upset anyone.  Why the uproar over a suggestion to create another
subset?

	When UCC companies demand trading partners use EDIINT AS2 (and many do)
they mean the EDIINT "AS2" subset certified by the UCC ... AS2 using S/MIME
and compression options.  But within the energy industry "AS2" means
PGP/MIME not S/MIME.
	AS2 subsets already exist.  The Energy industry (> 100 installations) uses
one subset of EDIINT AS2 and the packaged goods, healthcare, financial, high
technology and transportation industries (> 1000 installations) uses
another; currently the two AS2 subsets are incompatible.  Pretending
otherwise is creating considerable confusion in the user community.

	Using Dale Moberg's proposed terms ...AS1, AS2 (UCC certified) and ASx (PGP
version): there is no reason a vendor can't support EDIINT AS1, AS2 and ASx.
Such a vendor could claim to support all major subsets of EDIINT.  Further,
such a vendor would create convergence ... enabling trading between
industries which standardized on different subsets.
	With clear subsets within the EDIINT specification, there is no requirement
for a small company like iSoft, the WalMart AS2 vendor, to support AS1 or
ASx since WalMart dictates UCC-certified AS2 interfaces.

Gary Crough
Cyclone Commerce, Inc.

---

From: Chris Davenport <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 11:05:46 +0000

In message <[email-masked]>, Dick 
Brooks <[email-masked]> writes
>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

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

---

From: "Robert E. Frank" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 10:01:00 -0800

--------snip--------

Well said, Chris!  
This approach sustains the historic spirit of the Internet.  
We should stay the course.

Robert Frank
Open Commerce, Inc.