RE: AD review comments on

> > >>This suggests a possible approach of simply pulling all the problematic
> > >>MTA-to-UA stuff from the draft, and simply focusing on timely delivery (in
> > >>the original email sense).
> > >
> > >Doesn't that beg the question of how this mechanism differs from
> > >from the original DELIVERBY extension?
> 
> > Indeed.
> 
> > I think I know (roughly) the answer, but will respond differently.
> 
> > I think such differences would rapidly surface from the above mooted
> > approach.  TIMELY is consciously built on DELIVERBY, and uses existing
> > DELIVERBY mechanisms to the maximum extent possible.  So, if after pulling
> > the MTA-to-UA stuff there's nothing left, we simply say "use
> > DELIVERBY".  Job done.
> 
> As long as the WG is happy with this approach I have no problem with it.

I have no problem.

--
Hiroshi Tamura, Ricoh Company, LTD.
E-mail: [email protected]