Re: [VPIM] Re: IETF-FAX WG Draft agenda at Yokohama
Graham Klyne <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.fax |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Dave, If you were to do this, I think you'd also need to state, reasonably tightly, the conditions under which the esmtp negotiation would be used rather than the UA-based negotiation. I fear possible confusion or fragmentated deployments could be caused if two negotiation mechanisms are referenced in FFPIM. #g -- At 09:53 PM 7/7/02 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote: >At 01:32 PM 7/8/2002 +0900, Hiroshi Tamura wrote: >>6 SMTP Service Extension for Content Negotiation (30 min) >>- draft-ietf-fax-esmtp-conneg-02.txt >>- >>http://www.brandenburg.com/specifications/draft-ietf-fax-esmtp-conneg-03.txt >> >>7 FFPIM (5 min) >>- draft-ietf-fax-ffpim-01.txt > >The latest version of esmtp-conneg has removed all normative references to >fax. This change is intended to make the specification be appropriate for >general email use. > >Toyoda-san and I suggest that the requirement for conforming to >fax-oriented use of esmtp-conneg, such as with citations to: > > [RFC2305] Toyoda, K., Ohno, H., Murai, J. and D. Wing, > "A Simple Mode of Facsimile Using Internet Mail", > RFC 2305, March 1998. >and > [RFC2534] Masinter, L., Holtman, K., Mutz, A. and D. Wing, " > Media Features for Display, Print, and Fax", > RFC 2534, March 1999. > >be added to FFPIM. > >How do folks feel about this? > >d/ > >---------- >Dave Crocker <mailto:[email protected]> >Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com> >tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850 > >---------------------------------------------------------- >This message was sent to you, since you are subscribed to >[email protected]. You can manage your subscription at >http://www.neystadt.org/cgi-bin/majordomo ------------------- Graham Klyne <[email protected]>