[Ediint] Re: Comments on EDIINT Charter Draft

[Bojidar Ivanov <[e-mail]>]

Hi Debra, All,

The charter generally looks good. I have a small remark for the "Out of Scope" section:
"Changes that would break compatibility with RFC 4130 implementations."

We want to update the TLS version and ciphers and drop the broken ones, while maintaining protocol and message format backwards compatible.
I hope the working group does not see this as contradicting.

Otherwise, looks good.

Thanks,
Bojidar


-----Original Message-----
From: Debra Petta <debrap=[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 6:01 PM
To: Mohamed Boucadair <[e-mail]>; The IESG <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: [Ediint] Re: Comments on EDIINT Charter Draft

EXTERNAL EMAIL

Hi Med,

Thank you for the detailed review and for the PR with suggested edits. Your points are well-taken. The clarifications around the historical EDIINT protocols, the terminology around "modernize," the separation of implementation issues from deployment best practices, and the additional scoping notes are all helpful refinements. The questions about RFC 6017 and RFC 6362 are also important to surface as we consider how this work fits into the broader EDIINT landscape.

The PR containing your suggested updates as well as incorporation of the suggestions from Paul Wouters, Erik Kline and Eric Vyncke is now available for the group to review:
https://github.com/ietf-artarea/charters/pull/59

At this stage, it would be very useful for others in the community to look over both the PR and the revised charter text so we can ensure broad agreement on the proposed scope. To proceed toward Working Group formation, we need to demonstrate that there is sufficient interest and energy from participants to support the work, and that the charter accurately reflects that shared understanding.

I encourage anyone with feedback-supportive or otherwise-to review the PR and comment on the list. Once we've had a chance to gather input from the broader group, we should be in a strong position to move ahead.

Best regards,
Debra

-----Original Message-----
From: Mohamed Boucadair via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 4:30 AM
To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: [Ediint] Mohamed Boucadair's Yes on charter-ietf-ediint-01-00: (with COMMENT)

Mohamed Boucadair has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-ediint-01-00: Yes

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.)



The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-ediint/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi all,

I'm supportive of efforts to refresh reference specifications informed by deployments. The propose work is worth and well-defined.

Please find below some comments, fwiw. I also sent a PR with some suggested
edits:
https://github.com/ietf-artarea/charters/pull/59#pullrequestreview-3529171532.

# Enough energy to work on this effort

I hope we have enough participants to carry on this work. This is not obvious to infer from the public discussion (maybe I wasn't looking in the right place).

I suspect there were other channels where this was discussed. Right?

Anyway, I trust the call of the Responsible AD here.

# EDIINT Protocols

CURRENT:
  The EDIINT Working Group developed protocols enabling secure and reliable
  business data interchange over the Internet, including AS1, AS2, and AS3.

## What are the "developed protocols" referred to here? Per https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/ediint/documents/, there are three applicability statements with one Info doc.

## Better to explicit these applicability statements as these are not called as such in the main spec. I suggest:

s/ AS1, AS2, and AS3/AS1 [RFC3335], AS2 [RFC4130], and AS3 [RFC4823]

# Modernize & RESTful

CURRENT:
  focuses on modernizing AS2 to maintain its operational relevance and
  interoperability in today's Internet environment

"modernizing" while not supporting "RESTful interfaces" seems a bit conflicting. Better to get rid of "modernize" thing in the charter and use "update" or "refresh".

# Address.. deployment best practices?

CURRENT:
  - Address implementation ambiguities, interoperability challenges, and
  deployment best practices.

I don't parse what is meant by "Address... deployment best practices". Maybe better to split this into two parts: one to address the ambiguities and challenges + another sentence to document deployment best practices.

# Out of scope

Maybe adding a mention that updates to AS1/AS3 are out of scope.

# The LC applies to the full doc, not parts of it

- **WG Last Call**: Consensus on updates and backward compatibility sections
(Q4 2026)

Please reword.

# What is the plan for RFC6017?

# Likewise, what is the plan for RFC6362?

Cheers,
Med



_______________________________________________
Ediint mailing list -- [e-mail]
To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]

_______________________________________________
Ediint mailing list -- [e-mail]
To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]