RE: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-vaudreuil-mdnbis-00.txt

> > Note that the requirements for draft standard are explicit that
> all features
> > and options need to have at least two, interoperable implementations.  If
> > they are still useful, the unimplemented dispositions deleted from this
> > document may be standardized at a later date as an MDN extension.
>
> I do not read all, but I say,
>
> Some Ifax devices already use:
> "dispatched" or "processed" without modifiers
>   when succesfully decoding the received TIFF-FX file
> "processed/error" in the case of the failure.

Those devices will remain compliant with the Proposed Standard RFC2298,
but won't be compliant with the Draft Standard that Greg is authoring.


As soon as Greg's document becomes an RFC, I'll ask our development
group here in Cisco to bring our implementation in line with his
new Draft Standard.

-d