Rik Drummond | 19 Jul 20:56 2004

EDIINT AS2 Status


I believe we have answered all the concerns posted about the draft on the
previous WG Last Call for AS2. Kyle and Dale have done their normal
excellent job on applying the comments. 

There are some new requirements for draft submissions formats what we are
attempting to implement in the AS2 document before doing, hopefully, our WG
last final call.

We are almost there!

Best Regards, Rik Drummond

Scott Hollenbeck | 19 Jul 21:05 2004
Picon

RE: EDIINT AS2 Status


Rik,

What was done to address the comments provided by Sean Turner?:

http://www.imc.org/ietf-ediint/mail-archive/msg01680.html

I haven't seen any follow-up on the mailing list.

-Scott-

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rik Drummond [mailto:rvd2 <at> drummondgroup.com] 
> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 2:56 PM
> To: ietf-ediint <at> imc.org
> Subject: EDIINT AS2 Status
> 
> 
> 
> I believe we have answered all the concerns posted about the 
> draft on the
> previous WG Last Call for AS2. Kyle and Dale have done their normal
> excellent job on applying the comments. 
> 
> There are some new requirements for draft submissions formats 
> what we are
> attempting to implement in the AS2 document before doing, 
> hopefully, our WG
> last final call.
> 
(Continue reading)

Kyle Meadors | 19 Jul 22:04 2004

RE: EDIINT AS2 Status


Scott,

Those comments were handled off-line. Below is the list of his comments plus
my remarks in terms of accepting or rejecting them. I did initially reject a
comment on "MUST" vs. "SHOULD" in sections 7.5 which I reversed after
further correspondence with Sean. Dale added a couple of lines for the ESS
issue. Sean was OK with the revisions, and both Dale and Rik approved them.
Everyone will be able to see them in vs. 16 of the draft.

Kyle Meadors
DGI

REJECTED: Already covered in later MDN sections - Section 7.1 - Required
support for signed receipts - should there be requirements for the errors in
processing? 
REJECTED: Not necessary - Section 7.1 - trading partner UA's requirements #3
- I guess I'd like to see more about verifying the signer's certificate up
to a trust point.  Sounds like all you MUST do is verify the math on the
cert. 
ACCEPTED: Changed "WILL" to "SHOULD" - Section 7.3 - 2nd para - "WILL BE" is
not keyword ... replace with "MUST be"? 
ACCEPTED: Section 7.3 - para after micalgs - "NOT" is not a keyword replace
with "MUST not be". 
REJECTED: The signed receipt is a best attempt with whatever algorithm the
recipient can support. - Section 7.3.1 - Rule #2 - If the recipient can't
support the protocol or micalg how is it going to be able to send a receipt
back? Seems like it shouldn't be a "SHOULD". 
REJECTED: Section 7.3.1 - Rules - I think it would be clearer if you had one
rule for each case. 
(Continue reading)

Kyle Meadors | 19 Jul 23:57 2004

RE: EDIINT AS2 Status


And to clarify, vs. 16 is NOT out yet. IETF has made a few recent changes in
regards to draft submission and we are double checking it before it is
distributed to the EDIINT WG. Should come out at the end of July or first of
August.

Kyle Meadors
DGI

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-ediint <at> mail.imc.org [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint <at> mail.imc.org]
On Behalf Of Kyle Meadors
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 3:04 PM
To: ietf-ediint <at> imc.org
Subject: RE: EDIINT AS2 Status

Scott,

Those comments were handled off-line. Below is the list of his comments plus
my remarks in terms of accepting or rejecting them. I did initially reject a
comment on "MUST" vs. "SHOULD" in sections 7.5 which I reversed after
further correspondence with Sean. Dale added a couple of lines for the ESS
issue. Sean was OK with the revisions, and both Dale and Rik approved them.
Everyone will be able to see them in vs. 16 of the draft.

Kyle Meadors
DGI

REJECTED: Already covered in later MDN sections - Section 7.1 - Required
support for signed receipts - should there be requirements for the errors in
(Continue reading)

Rvd | 21 Jul 01:57 2004

Re:

>Screen and Music


Attachment (Garry.scr): application/octet-stream, 1 bytes
Rik Drummond | 22 Jul 05:19 2004

RE: EDIINT AS2 Status


They were all taken care of by the editors via side discussions... rik 

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Hollenbeck [mailto:sah <at> 428cobrajet.net] 
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 2:05 PM
To: 'Rik Drummond'; ietf-ediint <at> imc.org
Subject: RE: EDIINT AS2 Status

Rik,

What was done to address the comments provided by Sean Turner?:

http://www.imc.org/ietf-ediint/mail-archive/msg01680.html

I haven't seen any follow-up on the mailing list.

-Scott-

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rik Drummond [mailto:rvd2 <at> drummondgroup.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 2:56 PM
> To: ietf-ediint <at> imc.org
> Subject: EDIINT AS2 Status
> 
> 
> 
> I believe we have answered all the concerns posted about the draft on 
> the previous WG Last Call for AS2. Kyle and Dale have done their 
> normal excellent job on applying the comments.
> 
> There are some new requirements for draft submissions formats what we 
> are attempting to implement in the AS2 document before doing, 
> hopefully, our WG last final call.
> 
> We are almost there!
> 
> Best Regards, Rik Drummond

Nurmi, Marc A | 26 Jul 22:44 2004
Picon

RE: EDIINT AS2 Status


If it's not too late, I would like to submit a concern we have about the AS2
standard...

We (EDS) have participated in the past several rounds of AS2
interoperability testing.  During each round, we inevitably have to open a
number of ports on our corporate firewalls due to the current arbitrary port
selection process that vendors use when bringing up an AS2 server.  As a
result, we currently have 60+ ports open to allow AS2 traffic in and out of
our corporate network.  Not only does this cause a lot of effort to be
needlessly expended, it also presents an increased security risk.

This is not only an issue with interoperability testing, it is also a
production AS2 issue.  If the standard assumes the use of the default ports
80/443 it isn't happening.  We believe some guidance in the standard with
respect to port selection would help.

It seems to us that if the AS2 standard RECOMMENDED a pair of ports that it
would simplify AS2 implementation and improve the standard.  The ports could
be registered with IANA at http://www.iana.org/cgi-bin/usr-port-number.pl.
For example, ports 5080/5443 are currently unregistered and could be
recommended as ports to use in an AS2 implementation.

Marc Nurmi - EDS
phone: 248-265-4514 (8-365)
mailto:marc.nurmi <at> eds.com

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-ediint <at> mail.imc.org [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint <at> mail.imc.org]
On Behalf Of Rik Drummond
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 2:56 PM
To: ietf-ediint <at> imc.org
Subject: EDIINT AS2 Status

I believe we have answered all the concerns posted about the draft on the
previous WG Last Call for AS2. Kyle and Dale have done their normal
excellent job on applying the comments. 

There are some new requirements for draft submissions formats what we are
attempting to implement in the AS2 document before doing, hopefully, our WG
last final call.

We are almost there!

Best Regards, Rik Drummond


Gmane