Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-fax-gateway-protocol-07.txt

Wing-san

Thank you for your comments.


Dan Wing wrote:

> Section 4.1 says:
>
>    An onramp gateway MUST have the function that the onramp gateway
>    receive facsimile data from facsimile device over GSTN, then
>    generated Internet fax is sent to appropriate IFAX devices or PC by
>    the onramp gateway. How to transmit data from an onramp gateway to
>    IFAX devices MUST based on [3].
>
> Note that no onramp actually follows this MUST requirement.
> Specifically, the onramp does not "send to appropriate ifax
> device or PC".  Rather, the onramp sends the message to a
> mail transfer agent, and the mail transfer agent itself (or
> several of them) are involved in eventually transferring the
> mail to the ifax device.  If a PC, the mail transfer agent
> isn't involved in this final transfer, but the mail retrieval
> program is involved (POP server or IMAP server).
>
> Please clarify the text in the I-D.

We will change the sentence as follows.
from
     generated Internet fax is sent to appropriate IFAX devices or PC by
     the onramp gateway.
to
     generated Internet fax is sent to appropriate IFAX devices or PC
     via mail transfer agents by the onramp gateway.


> In section 4.2.0, I suggest that the following be added:
>
>   If a GSTN number transmitted as part of the local-part
>   of the email address, it SHOULD be in the global-phone
>   format.
>
> Myself, I would prefer MUST, but such a strict requirement may
> be too difficult to agree on in this working group.

We will chang the sentence as follows.
from
     4.2 Address designation
          An onramp gateway SHOULD have the function that onramp gateway
          analyze destination address from address data sent by facsimile
          device over GSTN.
to
     4.2 Address designation
          An onramp gateway SHOULD have the function that onramp gateway
          analyze destination address from address data sent by facsimile
          device over GSTN. If a GSTN number transmitted as part of the local-part
          of the email address, it SHOULD be in the global-phone format.


> Regarding authorization, is section 5 normative, or is
> section 3.3 normative?

Section 3.3 and 4.5 are normative.
We will change 5 Security Considerations like this.
     Refer to sention 3.3 User authorization  for the authentication
     about an offramp gateway. Refer to sention 4.5 User authorization
     for the authentication about an onramp gateway.


> In section 3.3, you need to clearly describe the "X-Header".
> You also need to provide a reference to S/MIME -- it is
> mentioned here in section 3.3, but there needs to be a
> normative or informational reference to S/MIME.

"X-Header" is one of the examples.
Therefore, we are discussing whether it is removed.
We will provid a reference to S/MIME.


--
K.Yokoyama