2005
DOI: 10.17487/rfc4130
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

MIME-Based Secure Peer-to-Peer Business Data Interchange Using HTTP, Applicability Statement 2 (AS2)

Abstract: Status of This Memo This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…MA-Feature-Name = "multiple-attachments" For a compressed but unsigned message, regardless of encryption, the MIC is calculated over the uncompressed multipart/related body including any applied Content-Transfer-Encoding. The body MUST be canonicalized according to the procedure described in the underlying transport protocol (e.g., HTTP AS2 [RFC4130]) before the MIC is calculated.…”
Section: Ediint-features Headermentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…MA-Feature-Name = "multiple-attachments" For a compressed but unsigned message, regardless of encryption, the MIC is calculated over the uncompressed multipart/related body including any applied Content-Transfer-Encoding. The body MUST be canonicalized according to the procedure described in the underlying transport protocol (e.g., HTTP AS2 [RFC4130]) before the MIC is calculated.…”
Section: Ediint-features Headermentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The primary work of the EDIINT working group (WG) was to develop a secure means of transporting EDI documents over the Internet. This was described in the three WG-developed standards for secure transport over SMTP AS1 [RFC3335], HTTP AS2 [RFC4130], and FTP AS3 [RFC4823]. For most uses of EDI, all relevant information to complete a single business transaction could be stored in a single document.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To make the third aspect an even harder challenge, enterprises may also apply more than one communication technology for realizing B2Bi due to internal or external constraints. This may be the case because a single communication technology cannot be forced upon all integration partners or because of legal regulations, e.g., customs authorities may require enterprises to send customs declarations using AS2 [2]. Standardization organizations take this problem into account, too.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Standardization organizations take this problem into account, too. RosettaNet 1 , for example, as a leading international B2Bi consortium has released the "Multi Messaging Services" profiles 2 for describing how to exchange RosettaNet defined standard business documents via Web Services, AS2 and ebXML Messaging [3] in 2008. This situation amounts to the first research problem that is investigated in this paper: Problem 1: How can new complex business collaborations be built using more than one type of communication technology?…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The original intent was for transport of a single EDI or XML document. However, as AS1 [RFC3335], AS2 [RFC4130], and AS3 [RFC4823] matured, other features and application logic were implemented upon EDIINT standards. Since these features go beyond (but do not violate) the basic premise of EDIINT, a means is needed to communicate to trading partners features that are supported by the originating user agent.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%