Subject: New SCMP Discussion List

From: Jason Eaton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 15:02:28 -0700

Simple Commerce Messaging Protocol ( SCMP ) 

SCMP is a general purpose commerce messaging protocol based on S/MIME.

There is a new mail list for discussion of the SCMP draft (
draft-arnold-scmp-02.txt ). Paul Hoffman at IMC has generously agreed to
host the list. To subscribe, send a message to "[email-masked]"
with the word "subscribe" in the body of the message.
Thanks. 

Jason Eaton			CyberSource Corporation
Phone 408.260.6044		Security Engineering Manager
[email-masked]	http://www.cybersource.com

---

From: "Siri Moe Jensen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 10:12:30 +0200

Could you give some information on the relationship of this
work to the ediint work?

Best regards,
Siri Moe Jensen.

[email-masked]
Tel: +47 22 49 49 24             
Mobile: +47 92 81 94 49       
Fax: +47 23 08 29 16

---

From: Susan McClendon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 16:36:01 -0500

Gunther's questions regarding the lack of formal coordination between
the SCMP WG and the EDIINT WG are very much in order.  Serious,
deliberate and regular communication should occur between these two
groups.
Also, if the draft itself is not a blueprint for implementation, then it
should refer to specific documents to provide futher clarification.

---

From: Graham Klyne <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 22:26:17 +0100

At 14:15 28/06/99 -0500, Gunther Schadow wrote:
[...]
>Now my wining.  I think that the emerge of this SCMP draft is a sign
>of a bad coordination that goes on in the IETF.  There is a working
>group called EDI-Internet Integration (EDIINT) that addresses EDI/EC
>messaging over the internet for quite a few years now. I want to know
>why there is a completely new and seemingly unrelated protocol "SCMP"
>now?

I am just an interested party, and not a principal in the SCMP proposal,
but I would like to toss in a couple of reasons why I find SCMP useful in
ways that EDIINT is not:

(a) SCMP is quite specific that it is intended to be payload- and service-
neutral.  I think future developments of this specification might form a
useful basis for a range of applications that require non-repudiable
message delivery over a variety of message transports.

(b) The SCMP specification is simple, and very easy to read.  This is in
stark contrast to the EDIINT specifications (and I am on record as having
made comments to this effect on the EDIINT discussion list).

I think that the simplicity and directness of the SCMP specification is in
the spirit of other classical and succesful IETF protocols.

#g
--

------------
Graham Klyne
([email-masked])