RE: ffpim revised draft

> At 08:08 PM 3/18/02 -0800, Dan Wing wrote:
> >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)?
> 
> The TIMELY spec actually requires support for DSN (and more).

Thanks.

> (But it may help to be more explicit.)

Yes, it would -- perhaps by pointing out that FFPIM achieves is
higher reliability of delivery confirmation by TIMELY's requirement
to implement DSN.  If there are other aspects of TIMELY that FFPIM
finds beneficial, especially if they're SHOULDs in TIMELY, it's vital
that FFPIM calls them out explicitly.  Currently, FFPIM only mentions
the timely delivery of TIMELY as the important part of TIMELY.

-d