Subject: RE: draft-ietf-fax-t30-capabilities-00.txt

From: Graham Klyne <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 10:52:02 +0100

At 19:10 14/09/98 -0700, Dan Wing wrote:

[...]
>My 1996 version of T.30 doesn't mention SUB or SID, but does show SEP
>is used for selective polling and PWD is the password used for
>polling. 

I'd be happy to leave them out, if nobody else thinks they're important.  I
was just raising a flag.

>It is my understanding that this IETF working group is trying to not
>create a closed T.30-to-SMTP-to-T.30 protocol. 

I think we've already established it can't be done within the terms of the
charter.

>>I understand that the T.30 bits are also used to indicate that there is
>>data ready to be sent by the polling mechanism (i.e. more than just
>>indicating a polling capability).
>
>Yes, but can you describe how this would work over email?

Again, I was just raising a flag.

>Further, if one desires to integrate with SMTP really well, perhaps
>the most proper and accurate mapping between T.30 polling and SMTP
>would be using AUTH+ATRN, [...]

I'd agree (but leave that matter to a separate document).

[...]
>>>   The fax offramp may wish to use the legacy machine's supplied
>>>   password to authenticate the recipient.  This could be done
>>>   by comparing a special field in the recipient's email address
>>>   (if using SMTP), such as "/T30PASSWORD=8924".
>>
>>My my mind, this relates to T.30-based fax security only, and is simply not
>>applicable to e-mail based security.  I base this view on the principle
>>that "security cannot be gatewayed".
>
>The security inherient with polling can be gatewayed quite
>successfully using AUTH+ATRN, I think. 

I think I was mis-understanding here.  If it's just a password for access
to polled data then it's no issue.  I was thinking of cryptographic-based
G3 fax security. 

#g

------------
Graham Klyne
([email-masked])