TRADE WG Meeting, 1 August 2000, 13:00 hours

Minutes (Taken by Ed Simon of Entrust, edited by Donald Eastlake):

Donald Eastlake ran the meeting. (see slides)

There were no changes in the suggested Agenda.

There was an extensive review of Working Group document status including approved documents, un-approved Internet Drafts, and planned documents not yet out as Internet Drafts.
	
Status of ECML and the ECML Alliance (www.ecml.org) was discussed.  They are advocating an XML format for ECML v2.  It is still the plan that they will finish up ECML 1.1 as an ECML Alliance document and hand ECML v2 to the working group.
	
Question: What about all the other XML business message format messages?

Answer: Rick Drummond, chair of EDIINT and of the sub-group	of ebXML working in the XML transport area has had considerable communications with Donald Eastlake.  The WG consensus appears to be let some more transport oriented and less application oriented working group handle the XML messaging level.

Q Steve Hole: Should there be a new WG to handle XML Messaging and business headers?

A Donald Eastlake: Let's discuss this more after Ko Fujimura's presentation since it is relevant.
	
There was no new implementation news.
	Hitachi and Royal Bank of Canada, who both implemented IOTP v0.9, are definitely implementing IOTP 1.0.  About a half dozen other companies have also said they are implmeneting IOTP v1.

Ko Fujimura of NTT, speaking for himself as an individual, gave his presentation on ECML v2 and IOTP.  See his slides.

Donald Eastlake presented the suggested updated and modified charter. (see slides)  People interested were urged to subscribe to the WG mailing list.

[Q=Question, A=Answer, C=Comment]

Q Steve Hole: Where has XML messaging gone?
A Donald Eastlake: David Burdett, who wrote the current XML Messaging Requirements draft in the TRADE WG, and Rick Drummond of EDIINT and ebXML noticed the overlap in effort.  The WG consensus has been that XML Messaging need NOT be done in the TRADE WG.
C Dick Brooks: The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is looking into XML transport protocls.
Q Steve Hole: Isn't the W3C more appropriate for XML protocols?

Discusion continued on whether the W3C or IETF or other forumswere best for this work.

Q Steve Hole: Should there be an EDI follow on working group?
C Dick Brooks: The current EDIINT is still in existence just because it was waiting on S/MIME to finalize a document it depends on.
C Donald Eastlake: Messaging is interesting but not specifically to just the TRADE working group.  We should presume that messaging will be done by someone else.  The charter needs to be changed.  I will send it out to the list for comments and then ask the IESG to adopt it.

Future Meetings
	There was no objection to the next meeting being in December 2000 at the San Diego IETF meeting.