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

McIntyre, Lloyd wrote:
>
>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?

Yes, I have the same understanding as McIntyre-san.
We implemented dispached feature in our prototype machine and I know other 
implementaions. So, I would like add the feature back into the document.

We implemented as below.

"dispatched" without modifiers when succesfully 
decoding the received TIFF-FX file

"processed/error"  or "processed/warning" in the case of the failure.


>
>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.
>> 


Kiyoshi Toyoda