Re: Last Call: SMTP Service Extension for Content Negotiation to Proposed Standard

Keith,

At 09:14 PM 7/2/2002 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
>         1. do the necessary protocol fixes to make it generally
>            applicable for email

Given that we DID make this generally applicable for email, someone still 
needs to list the way(s) the current specifications is deficient in that 
regard.  What capabilities or scenarios need to be support that cannot be 
with the current specification?


>         2. make clear that it has only limited applicability
>            for smtp-to-fax gateways,

Perhaps you missed the portion of my response that pointed out that it is 
not limited to that use and, in fact, that is not even its primary intended 
use.  If there is something in the specification that indicates otherwise, 
please point it out.


>            same capabilities, and where relaying and forwarding
>            were specifically disallowed.

There is a difference between being optimized for single-user and/or 
single-hop scenarios, versus prohibiting multi-user and/or multi-hop 
scenarios.  As nearly as I can tell, you are missing that difference.


>            however if pursuing this path it would still be necessary to
>            leave room for VOICENEG or MIMENEG or whatever,

If you would supply some sort of functional description for these, it might 
be possible to understand how the current specifications fails to satisfy 
them.  I have no idea what you are intending, and therefore cannot even 
guess at the deficiencies you are implying.


>- Also, unless the client is acting directly on behalf of the
>recipient (which is not required by the draft)

Please specify what you mean by "acting directly on behalf of the 
recipient" and how the current specification fails to provide the necessary 
technical specification.

If the specification contained whatever language about "acting directly on 
behalf" you are seeking, how would it change the normative technical 
specification?


>  the client
>is being asked to make a convert-or-fail decision without
>any reasonable (sender-supplied or standardized) criteria as
>to what kinds of conversions are acceptable.
>
>This seems like another major omission in the current spec.

You again seem to be missing the fact that that "omission" predates CONNEG 
and has been part of Internet mail for 8 years.

d/


----------
Dave Crocker  <mailto:[email protected]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.850.1850