Re: Draft new TRADE WG Charter, two week comment period

[Yoshiaki KAWATSURA <[e-mail]>]

>>>>> Tue, 15 Aug 2000 20:34:01 +0900,
	Ko Fujimura <[e-mail]> said:

> Eastlake Donald-LDE008 wrote:
> ...
> > The working group will document interoperability experience with
> > IOTP version 1 (which has been published as an Informational RFC)
> > and develop the requirements for IOTP version 2. Selection of
> > items for inclusion in version requirements 2 is to be from the
> > following:
> >  - Separation of a content independent Messaging Layer
> >  - Dynamic Definition of Trading Sequences
> >  - Offer Request Block
> >  - Improved Problem Resolution (extend to cover presentation of
> >         signed receipt to customer support party, etc.)
> >  - Server to Server messages
> >  - Standardized XML Digital Signatures based on output from
> >         the XMLDSIG working group
> 
> Coordination between IOTP and ECML may be an item should be considered.
> I think that IOTP version 2 should specify the position of ECML version 2.
> How do you think? 

I agree with you. I think we can simplify the current specification by
collaborating with other related protocols such as ECML.

Additionally we should separate the specification document of IOTP
after it has reflected the implimentation result because the current
specification is too big and hard to progress IOTP.

----
Yoshiaki Kawatsura : E-mail [e-mail]
 Business Solution Systems Development Division, Hitachi,Ltd.
Voice: [phone](direct) Fax: [phone]