Since there appears to be consensus in using EDIINT–Features
header to announce feature support in trading partner, I have put together the
following scenarios. Are these accurate? I have also included the EDIINT–Features
draft which was issued last year to IETF. Does it convey all information needed
for a robust implementation?
Actors: Company Alpha and Trading Partners Bravo and Charley
Initial Condition: Alpha has trading relationship with Bravo
and both are using AS2–Version: 1.1 products. TP Charley is schedule to
be setup with Alpha.
Action 1: Alpha upgrades product to AS2–Version: 1.2
using EDIINT–Features. It supports feature CEM.
Expected Outcome–1: All messages coming out of Alpha contain
EDIINT–Features header and AS2–Version: 1.2.
Expected Outcome–2: Bravo ignores and does NOT fail Alpha’s
messages and processes them “normally”. Alpha does NOT send CEM
messages to Bravo because it does not detect EDIINT–Features support for
CEM.
Action 2: Bravo upgrades product to AS2–Version: 1.2
using EDIINT–Features. It supports features CEM and MA.
Expected Outcome–1: All messages coming out of Bravo contain
EDIINT–Features header and AS2–Version: 1.2.
Expected Outcome–2: Both Alpha and Bravo recognize
each other’s support of CEM through EDIINT–Features header, and Bravo
recognizes Alpha does NOT support MA.
Action 3: Alpha onramps Charley as a trading partner.
Expected Outcome–1: Certificates for both Alpha and
Charley MUST be exchanged out–of–band
Expected Outcome–2: After trading begins, Alpha
recognizes Charley does NOT support CEM through its messages.
Action 4: Alpha issues new certificates.
Expected Outcome–1: Alpha sends new certificates
through CEM to Bravo. Bravo follows CEM procedure and upgrades certificates.
Expected Outcome–2: Alpha exchanges new certificates
with Charley out–of–band. Charley upgrades new certificates and
notifies Alpha of upgrade.
Kyle Meadors
Principal, Test Process
Drummond Group Inc.
615.212.0826
