Electronic Data Interchange-Internet Integration (ediint)

Rik Drummond | 3 Aug 1998 18:50

New Draft for review....FW: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ediint-hl7-00.txt

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-ediint <at> imc.org [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint <at> imc.org] On
Behalf Of Internet-Drafts <at> ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 1998 9:21 AM
To: IETF-Announce: ;
Cc: ietf-ediint <at> imc.org
Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ediint-hl7-00.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
This draft is a work item of the Electronic Data Interchange-Internet
Integration Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: Secure HL7 Transactions using Internet Mail
	Author(s)	: G. Schadow, M. Tucker, W. Rishel
	Filename	: draft-ietf-ediint-hl7-00.txt
	Pages		: 68
	Date		: 27-Jul-98

This memo describes the applicability of the Internet standardization
efforts on secure electronic data interchange (EDI) transactions for
Health Level-7 (HL7), an EDI standard for healthcare used worldwide.
This memo heavily relies on the work in progress by the IETF EDIINT
working group. It is in most parts a restatement of the EDIINTs
requirements document and application statement 1 (AS#1) tailored to the
needs of the HL7 audience. We tried to make this document as self
consistent as possible. The goal is to give to the reader who is not a
security or Internet standards expert enough foundational and detail
information to enable him to build communication software that complies

(Continue reading)

Rik Drummond | 5 Aug 1998 22:18

draft-ietf-ediint-as2-01.txt for review

If this looks ok, I will do a last call on it in a couple of weeks. Please
let us know your thoughts.... best regards, rik

-----Original Message-----
From: Dale Moberg [mailto:Dale_Moberg <at> stercomm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 1998 10:07 AM
To: drummond <at> onramp.net
Subject: draft-ietf-ediint-as2-01.txt

Hi Rik,

Here is the revised draft.

This is the one sent earlier in June.

Bye
Dale

(See attached file: draft-ietf-ediint-as2-01.txt)

Attachment (draft-ietf-ediint-as2-01.txt): application/octet-stream, 19 KiB

Rik Drummond | 18 Aug 1998 16:09

FW: draft-ietf-ediint-as2-01.txt for review

any comments on this HTTP EDIINT draft?

Rik

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-ediint <at> imc.org [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint <at> imc.org] On
Behalf Of Rik Drummond
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 1998 3:19 PM
To: ietf-ediint <at> imc.org
Subject: draft-ietf-ediint-as2-01.txt for review

If this looks ok, I will do a last call on it in a couple of weeks. Please
let us know your thoughts.... best regards, rik

-----Original Message-----
From: Dale Moberg [mailto:Dale_Moberg <at> stercomm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 1998 10:07 AM
To: drummond <at> onramp.net
Subject: draft-ietf-ediint-as2-01.txt

Hi Rik,

Here is the revised draft.

This is the one sent earlier in June.

Bye
Dale

(See attached file: draft-ietf-ediint-as2-01.txt)

(Continue reading)

Shih,Chuck | 18 Aug 1998 19:29

Picon

RE: draft-ietf-ediint-as2-01.txt for review

Rik,

It looks good.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Rik Drummond [SMTP:drummond <at> onramp.net]
> Sent:	Tuesday, August 18, 1998 7:09 AM
> To:	ietf-ediint <at> imc.org
> Subject:	FW: draft-ietf-ediint-as2-01.txt for review
> 
> any comments on this HTTP EDIINT draft?
> 
> Rik
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ietf-ediint <at> imc.org [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint <at> imc.org] On
> Behalf Of Rik Drummond
> Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 1998 3:19 PM
> To: ietf-ediint <at> imc.org
> Subject: draft-ietf-ediint-as2-01.txt for review
> 
> 
> If this looks ok, I will do a last call on it in a couple of weeks. Please
> let us know your thoughts.... best regards, rik
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dale Moberg [mailto:Dale_Moberg <at> stercomm.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 1998 10:07 AM
> To: drummond <at> onramp.net
> Subject: draft-ietf-ediint-as2-01.txt

(Continue reading)

Carl Hage | 19 Aug 1998 00:36

Re: FW: draft-ietf-ediint-as2-01.txt for review

> Reply-to:      <drummond <at> onramp.net>
> From:          "Rik Drummond" <drummond <at> onramp.net>

> any comments on this HTTP EDIINT draft?

I think it would be useful to explicitly mention the distinction between 
RFC822 headers and the HTTP transport headers. An example of the interchange 
would be useful. I think it's very easy to get confused and misinterpret the 
standard.

Are the To:, From:, and Message-ID: headers part of the HTTP content, or are 
they sent as extension headers along with the HTTP headers?

I assumed that the data transmitted to an http server would look something 
like:

POST /edi.cgi HTTP/1.1
Host: www.xxx.com
Content-Length: 4355
Content-Type: message/rfc822

To: edi <at> xxx.com
From: edi <at> yyy.com
Message-ID: 980234.0034 <at> yyy.com
Content-Type: multipart/signed

...First line of multipart content here...

The data transmitted consists of the HTTP headers, a blank line, the RFC822 
headers, a blank line, followed by the content.

(Continue reading)

John Interrante | 19 Aug 1998 15:44

Picon

Re: FW: draft-ietf-ediint-as2-01.txt for review

"Carl Hage" <carl <at> chage.com> writes:

> I think it would be useful to explicitly mention the distinction between 
> RFC822 headers and the HTTP transport headers. An example of the interchange 
> would be useful. I think it's very easy to get confused and misinterpret the 
> standard.

I interpreted the draft as saying that the To:, From:, and Message-ID: 
headers were supposed to be sent as extension headers along with the
HTTP headers.

> I assumed that the data transmitted to an http server would look something 
> like:
> 
> POST /edi.cgi HTTP/1.1
> Host: www.xxx.com
> Content-Length: 4355
> Content-Type: message/rfc822
> 
> To: edi <at> xxx.com
> From: edi <at> yyy.com
> Message-ID: 980234.0034 <at> yyy.com
> Content-Type: multipart/signed

I like this interpretation a LOT better for the following reason:

> Note that existing CGI processing does not pass the extension headers to the 
> processing application. Thus, the content-type: message/rfc822 works, and 
> merged headers won't work with existing http/cgi servers.

(Continue reading)

Dale Moberg | 19 Aug 1998 17:03

Re: FW: draft-ietf-ediint-as2-01.txt for review


>I interpreted the draft as saying that the To:, From:, and Message-ID:
>headers were supposed to be sent as extension headers along with the
>HTTP headers.

The current text probably needs some clarification but the "TO" etc headers
are added as extension headers. They may also be repeated in the
message body; maybe that needs to be suggested explicitly.

>> Note that existing CGI processing does not pass the extension headers to
the
>> processing application. Thus, the content-type: message/rfc822 works,
and
>> merged headers won't work with existing http/cgi servers. [This was Carl
Hage's
point I think.]
>The Java Servlet API also doesn't make it easy to get extension
>headers.  I believe it's possible, but very awkward.  You probably
>could enumerate the headers with getHeaderNames() and look up each
>header's value with getHeader(name), but I bailed out and didn't try
[This was John Interrante's comment.]
I wanted to avoid getting too much into implementation details, but
consider what
the CGI environment variable specification says:

http://hoohoo.ncsa.uiuc.edu/cgi/env.html

"In addition to these, the header lines received from the client, if any,
are placed into the environment with the prefix
HTTP_ followed by the header name. Any - characters in the header

(Continue reading)

Dale Moberg | 19 Aug 1998 18:03

Re: FW: draft-ietf-ediint-as2-01.txt for review


>I interpreted the draft as saying that the To:, From:, and Message-ID:
>headers were supposed to be sent as extension headers along with the
>HTTP headers.

The current text probably needs some clarification but the "TO" etc headers
are added as extension headers. They may also be repeated in the
message body; maybe that needs to be suggested explicitly.

>> Note that existing CGI processing does not pass the extension headers to
the
>> processing application. Thus, the content-type: message/rfc822 works,
and
>> merged headers won't work with existing http/cgi servers. [This was Carl
Hage's
point I think.]
>The Java Servlet API also doesn't make it easy to get extension
>headers.  I believe it's possible, but very awkward.  You probably
>could enumerate the headers with getHeaderNames() and look up each
>header's value with getHeader(name), but I bailed out and didn't try
[This was John Interrante's comment.]
I wanted to avoid getting too much into implementation details, but
consider what
the CGI environment variable specification says:

http://hoohoo.ncsa.uiuc.edu/cgi/env.html

"In addition to these, the header lines received from the client, if any,
are placed into the environment with the prefix
HTTP_ followed by the header name. Any - characters in the header

(Continue reading)

Dale Moberg | 19 Aug 1998 18:03

Re: FW: draft-ietf-ediint-as2-01.txt for review


>I interpreted the draft as saying that the To:, From:, and Message-ID:
>headers were supposed to be sent as extension headers along with the
>HTTP headers.

The current text probably needs some clarification but the "TO" etc headers
are added as extension headers. They may also be repeated in the
message body; maybe that needs to be suggested explicitly.

>> Note that existing CGI processing does not pass the extension headers to
the
>> processing application. Thus, the content-type: message/rfc822 works,
and
>> merged headers won't work with existing http/cgi servers. [This was Carl
Hage's
point I think.]
>The Java Servlet API also doesn't make it easy to get extension
>headers.  I believe it's possible, but very awkward.  You probably
>could enumerate the headers with getHeaderNames() and look up each
>header's value with getHeader(name), but I bailed out and didn't try
[This was John Interrante's comment.]
I wanted to avoid getting too much into implementation details, but
consider what
the CGI environment variable specification says:

http://hoohoo.ncsa.uiuc.edu/cgi/env.html

"In addition to these, the header lines received from the client, if any,
are placed into the environment with the prefix
HTTP_ followed by the header name. Any - characters in the header

(Continue reading)

John Interrante | 19 Aug 1998 18:05

Picon

Re: FW: draft-ietf-ediint-as2-01.txt for review

"Dale Moberg" <Dale_Moberg <at> stercomm.com> writes:

> The current text probably needs some clarification but the "TO" etc headers
> are added as extension headers. They may also be repeated in the
> message body; maybe that needs to be suggested explicitly.

Oh, I see now.  I misunderstood this part:

   [draft-ietf-ediint-as2-01.txt]
   2. Stages of an HTTP EDI exchange transaction

       An EDI data file or stream is first structured into one of the
       message templates described in [12], sections 4.2.1 to 4.2.4 or
       4.3.1 to 4.3.4 for PGP/MIME or S/MIME security. If TLS is to be used,

The cited sections in [12] are:

   [draft-ietf-ediint-as1-08.txt]
   4.3 Structure of an EDI MIME message - S/MIME

      4.3.1 No encryption, no signature

      -RFC822/2045
          -RFC1767 (application/EDIxxxx)

      4.3.2 No encryption, signature

      -RFC822/2045
          -RFC1847 (multipart/signed)
                  -RFC1767 (application/EDIxxxx)

(Continue reading)

Group

gmane.ietf.ediint.

Search Archive

Page

1 | 2 | 3

Articles in period: 23

August 1998

Language

Change language

Options

Current view: Threads only / Showing only 20 lines / Not hiding cited text.
Change to All messages, whole messages, or hide cited text.

Post a message
NNTP Newsgroup
Classic Gmane web interface
XML

XML

RSS Feed
List Information

About Gmane

Recent entries

Information on Certificate Exchange Message (23 Jan 2011)
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-meadors-certificate-exchange-12.txt (15 Dec 2010)
update on draft-meadors-ediint-features-header and IANA review request (28 May 2010)
Is this mailing list still active? (18 Nov 2009)
I-D Action:draft-ietf-ediint-compression-11.txt (5 May 2008)
I-D Action:draft-ietf-ediint-compression-10.txt (25 Mar 2008)
I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ediint-compression-09.txt (23 Jul 2007)
I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ediint-compression-08.txt (11 Jun 2007)
I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ediint-compression-07.txt (1 Jun 2007)
RFC 4823 on FTP Transport for Secure Peer-to-Peer Business Data Interc (24 Apr 2007)
I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ediint-compression-06.txt (17 Jan 2007)
Original EDI working group mailing list archive (15 Nov 2006)
Original EDI working group mailing list archive (14 Nov 2006)
Concerning http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-smime-cms-mu (21 Jul 2006)
EDI FTP transfer (13 May 2006)
WG Action: Conclusion of Electronic Data Interchange-Internet (14 Mar 2006)
CEM Draft update (7 Mar 2006)
AS2 Reliability and an issue for comment. (7 Mar 2006)
Document Action: 'FTP Transport for Secure Peer-to-Peer Business Data (6 Mar 2006)
update on EDIINT Features (22 Feb 2006)
making a decision on CEM (13 Feb 2006)

Archives

1	January 2011
1	December 2010
9	June 2010
1	May 2010
1	November 2009
1	May 2008
1	March 2008
1	July 2007
1	June 2007
1	May 2007
1	April 2007
1	January 2007
6	November 2006
1	July 2006
1	May 2006
7	March 2006
3	February 2006
4	January 2006
14	December 2005
5	November 2005
22	October 2005
4	August 2005
6	July 2005
6	June 2005
4	May 2005
13	April 2005
1	March 2005
5	February 2005
7	January 2005
3	December 2004
8	November 2004
7	October 2004
4	September 2004
5	August 2004
7	July 2004
2	June 2004
2	May 2004
8	April 2004
4	March 2004
2	February 2004
26	January 2004
1	December 2003
1	November 2003
2	September 2003
7	August 2003
2	July 2003
13	June 2003
3	March 2003
4	February 2003
36	January 2003
1	November 2002
22	October 2002
7	September 2002
3	August 2002
12	June 2002
12	May 2002
16	April 2002
25	March 2002
6	February 2002
4	January 2002
10	December 2001
23	November 2001
1	October 2001
8	September 2001
1	July 2001
2	June 2001
4	May 2001
14	April 2001
10	March 2001
4	February 2001
23	January 2001
6	December 2000
107	November 2000
14	October 2000
5	September 2000
5	August 2000
1	July 2000
4	June 2000
5	May 2000
17	April 2000
16	March 2000
6	February 2000
2	January 2000
4	December 1999
19	November 1999
16	October 1999
5	September 1999
11	August 1999
18	July 1999
21	June 1999
6	May 1999
61	April 1999
56	March 1999
53	February 1999
3	January 1999
22	December 1998
22	November 1998
43	October 1998
1	September 1998
23	August 1998
2	July 1998
8	June 1998
53	May 1998
31	April 1998
23	March 1998
30	February 1998
34	January 1998
48	December 1997
31	November 1997
14	October 1997
5	September 1997
29	August 1997
59	July 1997
101	June 1997
16	May 1997
37	April 1997
87	March 1997
49	February 1997
45	January 1997
44	December 1996
67	November 1996
83	October 1996
98	September 1996
26	August 1996
93	July 1996
73	June 1996
217	May 1996
58	April 1996
37	March 1996
79	February 1996
1	January 1995

Design

Zawodny | Right Menu | Left Menu

Your Own Design

Paste the URL of your CSS below. Download CSS template