Subject: Re: Regarding draft-ietf-fax-fulladdr-04.txt

From: "Claudio Allocchio" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 12:53:37 +0100

Hallo,

>I'm wondering if I'm addressing the right place if I want to adjust the
standard or am 
>I supposed to address an Internet Engineering Task Force working group?

The "author" is usually the editor of the IETF WG decisions, but I think I
can help
you with your questions.

>My main concern is the control that is left to the originator with the
ability to insert 
>pre and post GSTN kodes

This is ONLY possible if the originator wants to use the local-phone syntax.
In fact
the local-phone syntax can be used only if the originator knows exactly
about the
existence and the functionality of the involved offramp fax gateway (if
any).
It means also that this local-phone syntax is specifically designed for
proprietary
services and/or implementations, where the originator know exactly how to
use the
additional eentual features of the service. 

If the originator does not know about the specifical features of the
involved fax
gateway, or prefers to leave handling to the offramp fax gateway, then he
must use the
global-phone syntax.

There is not contraddiction in both cases: on the contrary it is esplicitly
done 
in this way... global-phone: the originator leaves total control to the
offreamp
gateway; local-phone: the origintator wishes to control the features of the
offramp fax
gateway (and of course knows about them).

, the inclution of local phone recipient (wich assumes 
>that the originator _think_ that he know where the Fax gateway physically
exists ) 

yes, exactly: it is intentionally done like that (see above)

>and the difference between X.400 and proposed labels that makes X.400 to
SMTP 
>routing difficoult.

There was a large debate both into the ietf-fax WG and the X.400 MIXER WG
about this.
The log of the discussion is on-line on the ietf-fax mailing list archive
(http://www.imc.org).

The distinction is made intentionally, in order to avoid possible confusion.
ienternet fax
users will probably NOT know exactly the possible legal combinations of
X.400 addres elements,
and leaving them control this feature will generate a very large number of
illegal X.400
addresses when crossing a MIXER gateway. More over most of X.400 fax
services DO NOT conform
to the proposed X.400 elements for fax service. 

As a  conclusion, the WGs decided to adopt a tunnelling technique, i.e. to
encode an Internet
fax address into DD.rfc-822 when reaching X.400 realm, and not to map the
address at all.

Using this rfc0822 encoding method, also X.400 users will be able to reach
successfully
Internet fax offramp gateways. Viceversa, Internet users can address an
X.400 to fax gateway
both converting (mapping) the X.400 address into rfc822, or encoding the
X.400 fax address
in LHS of an address pointing to a MIXER gateway.

>I want to discuss this further to make sure I end up with a proper
addressing 
>scheme.

I hope this helps to clarify a bit... sorry again for the late answer!

Regards
Claudio Allocchio

>Christian Stange
>Telenor Nextel a/s
>
>epost : ipfaks at online dot no  (sorry for the spam protection)
>Tlf  : 88 00 72 31 Fax: 55 32 18 58

---

From: "Glenn Parsons" <[email-masked]>
Date: 28 Oct 1998 17:07 EST

Clauddio,

We briefly discussed this draft at the VPIM meeting...

There were several concerns.  The first is a fundamental disagreement
with putting PSTN routing information in the LHS.  Some thought it
belonged in either RHS or not in the address at all (ie, it should be
in the network).  Another concern was that it was putting too much
information on the LHS (eg, street address), that is, this belongs 
somewhere else.  Finally, there was a concern that using the service
selector to identify the content (as opposed to identifying the
transport) is tempting, but would be inappropriate. 

That said, it was viewed as being somewhat useful to add a couple 
voice mail cases.  These are voice outcalling (creating a voice
message and delivering it to a phone that does not have voice mail
by calling the phone and playing the message) and AMIS-A gateways.

These are similar to the fax offramp cases and are niche situations;
we do not think this scheme will be generally used for VPIM messages.
We currently use mailbox@FQDN and this will likely quickly evolve
to be unrestrained email addresses.

Does it make sense to include these in this draft or should we
put this in a different document that references this draft?
The text would be quite similar to the text we reviewed on voice
for the minimum addressing spec back in Washington.

Cheers,
Glenn.