RE: draft-ietf-fax-esmtp-conneg-08.txt

>At 09:49 16/07/03 +0200, Dave Crocker wrote:
>>VGMG>  I
>>VGMG> believe that failing a message for non-support of an optional
>>VGMG> ESMTP extension is a drastic step, and I believe unprecedented.
>>
>>Is there is technical deficiency with the specification?  Is there some
>>reason the specification will not work?
>
>I don't believe this is unprecedented...
>
>The DELIVERBY extension does something similar when the appropriate options 
>are selected by the sender, and delivery cannot be completed within the 
>requested period:

May I suggest the same "mode R" flexibility in ConPerm that exists within Deliveryby?  This allows use by clients which wish to authorize, but not require, content conversion to request such.  I understand from Dave's response that this is not necessary for the Fax community, but I can imagine others, including the voice messaging or unified messaging community that would prefer a different behavior.

Said differently, if the client can request the forward or fail behavior upon non-support of the extension, the community of clients that can and will use the extension will be larger.

Greg V.