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

My understanding is that the "dispatched" feature may be retained if
information can be provided to verify that there are interoperable
implementations.
Tamura-san is it possible to have two or more manufacturers document
interoperability of sending and receiving MDN with the dispatched feature?

Lloyd

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Wing [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 4:22 PM
> To: Hiroshi Tamura; [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: 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
>