Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-fax-ffpim-02.txt

Hiroshi-san,

>> 	Title		: Full-mode Fax Profile for Internet Mail:  FFPIM
>> 	Filename	: draft-ietf-fax-ffpim-02.txt

HT> Could you briefly tell us the difference from -01?

Glad to see the document finally issued.  I kept posting it incorrectly.

The simplest response to your question is that the document is
streamlined and clarified.

Other than improvements to the writing -- or, rather, changes that we
_hope_ are improvements, the only technical changes are:

            1. Refers to newest SMTP CONNEG

            2. Removes reference to SMTP TIMELY, but adds discussion in
            the Appendix, on direct connection, to approximate T.30
            dialup transmission times.

            3. Asks about the current status of the reference to TIFF-FX

            4. Asks whether TIFF-FX support should be required for all
            FFPIM implementation.

            5. A somewhat more careful discussion of security issues.

I believe that the only interesting item on this list is #4:

     My own recommendation is that support for TIFF-FX is be classed
     as a SHOULD, rather than a MAY or MUST.

A "MAY" does not really mean much.  Participating FFPIM implementation
"may" support any MIME content-type it wants to.

A "MUST" imposes a higher level of content type support on an FFPIM
implementation than is present for a T.30 system.  The goal for FFPIM
has been to emulate the T.30 environment, rather than to require more
than T.30.  So a "SHOULD" encourages support for TIFF-FX but allows
implementations to decline to offer support, but still be compliant with
FFPIM.

As soon as #3 and #4 are resolved, and in the absence of any objections,
we believe the document is ready for Last Call.

d/
--
 Dave Crocker <dcrocker-at-brandenburg-dot-com>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>