_____________________________________ From: Erik Kline <ek.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> Sent: 12 April 2025 20:01 cc +ART ADs<mailto:art-ads@xxxxxxxx> On Sat, Apr 12, 2025 at 11:30 AM Debra Petta <debrap=40drummondgroup.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:40drummondgroup.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: Dear IETF Community, My name is Debra Petta, and I serve as the primary AS2 interoperability Test Lead and as a Senior Software Engineer at Drummond Group, the organization that has coordinated interoperability and conformance testing for AS2 implementations for over two decades. Prior to my role at Drummond, I was the lead AS2 Development Engineer at Cleo Communications, and I’ve been working directly with AS2 for over 25 years. As many of you know, RFC 4130, which defines AS2 under the EDIINT framework, was published in 2005 and has not been updated since that time. While the protocol remains in widespread use across supply chains and industry sectors, its specification has fallen behind in several key areas—particularly around security (e.g., deprecated algorithms, FIPS compliance) and implementation ambiguities that have been clarified informally through years of interoperability testing. Over the upcoming months, I plan to engage with our AS2 user base and vendor community to: * Gather and consolidate long-standing consensus behaviors and test-derived best practices * Define updates to cryptographic algorithm support (e.g., stronger hash/signing/encryption options) * Explore the development of a new Internet-Draft to update or replace RFC 4130 I’m reaching out to kindly ask for guidance, specifically, * What is the recommended approach for initiating such an update—given that the original EDIINT working group is now closed? * Should this effort begin as an individual submission? * Are there relevant working groups or areas within the IETF that may be appropriate for broader discussion? <tp> Debra, Eric Kline, INT Area AD, forwarded your e-mail to the ART Area ADs suggesting to me that ART Area is the place to go. I do not see a WG that is an obvious match for it but that may be my ignorance of the ART Area. It helps to have a WG in mind since you can then name the I-D-petta-<WGname>-RFC4130bis which can attract attention from the right people, such as WG Chairs. Names can be changed but then history can get lost so I would seek to get the WG right from the start. Yes, that is an individual submission but with adoption by a specific WG in mind which is how most of the work of the IETF starts. In passing, I know what AS2 means but that meaning makes no sense here so that could be something worth expanding on:-) HTH Tom Petch We recognize and respect the rigor of the IETF process and want to ensure this work is done collaboratively and in alignment with the community’s expectations. Thank you in advance for any direction or support that you can provide. I’d be happy to provide additional context or participate in any discussions that would help move this effort forward. Sincerely, Debra Petta [https://d23fetfglg1ija.cloudfront.net/signature_fields/5cf81143e8b0ad347158c34c/DGLogoFullColor1559831400.png]<http://www.drummondgroup.com/> Debra Petta Sr. Software Engineer Information Security and Interoperability E debrap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:debrap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> W drummondgroup.com<http://www.drummondgroup.com/>
