RE: ffpim revised draft
"Dan Wing" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.fax |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
The introduction (section 1.0) mentions enhancements to reliability, timliness, and capability negotiation. What is the enhancement introduced by FFPIM for reliability? Section 1.1 mispells "RCPT-TO". There is a missing section 3 (section numbers go from 1.1 directly to 3). Is there really an expectation that TIMELY will be implemented when DSN hasn't been implemented in all these years? I mean to say, why does 3.0 require support of TIMELY, but doesn't require support of NOTARY (DSN)? Section 5 says that FFPIM is an extension of both RFC2305 and RFC2532. Does this mean that an FFPIM implementation must conform to RFC2305 and RFC2532? If so, FFPIM doesn't state that anywhere but in section 5, which is the security section. The draft appears to contain some non-ASCII characters (specifically smart quotes). -d -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Dave Crocker Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 2:14 PM To: IETF-FAX Subject: ffpim revised draft Importance: High Folks, A very tardy Christmas present... I've posted a revised draft of FFPIM at: <http://www.brandenburg.com/specifications/draft-ietf-fax-ffpim-03-03dc.txt>. If there are no problems with it, it will be posted as the draft for Last Call. d/ ---------- Dave Crocker <mailto:[email protected]> TribalWise, Inc. <http://www.tribalwise.com> tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850