Subject: Re: Full Mode and SLA

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 10:06:13 EST

Wing-san

Thank you very much for reply.

I think that FullMode works between terminals on the existing network.
It would certainly require an agreement between sender and receiver 
that the recipient is FullMode. The recipient's mailbox does not required 
to understand this protocol tunneling, but the recipient is required to 
understand this protocol.
This is tunneling.

EIFAX is to be interoperable with the existing base of MTAs and MUAs, 
and it is not creating fax-specific features.

FullMode is to be interoperable with the new Internet fax FullMode devices,
and it implements fax features as terminal functions over existing Internet.

Regards.

Toru MAEDA
CANON Inc.
From Minneapolis

In a message dated 99/03/13 1:22:21 JST,  [email-masked] writes:

<< Subj:	 Re: Full Mode and SLA
 Date:	99/03/13 1:22:21 JST
 From:	[email-masked] (Dan Wing)
 Sender:	[email-masked]
 To:	[email-masked] (MAEDA toru)
 CC:	[email-masked] (Michael Crawford), [email-masked]
 
 On Fri, 12 Mar 1999 19:56 +0900, MAEDA toru wrote:
 
 > Could you explain why FullMode needs SLA between the sender and receiver?
 > Does SLA mean service level agreement (SLA) ?
 > 
 > Does FullMode require an extended SMTP?
 
 The only proposal I have seen to implement "Full Mode", from Mike Lake,
 was to send T.30 in a mail message.  He never wrote a full proposal
 describing how this would work or the failure conditions, so I have no
 idea what kind of SMTP it would have required.  However, it would
 certainly require an agreement between sender and receiver that the
 recipient's mailbox be able to understand this protocol tunneling (that
 is, tunneling T.30 inside a non-real-time protocol and making assumptions
 about the recipient's capabilities).
 
 However, that proposal still did not implement all of the ITU's
 requirements for "Full Mode" which were, if I recall them correctly, to
 completely emulate all aspects of the real-time T.30 fax transmission
 features over a non-real-time transport (SMTP), and to do this without
 requiring any changes to intermediate mailers and without loosing any
 of the less-used fax features such as T.30 authentication, polling,
 etc.

 And yes, by "SLA" I meant Service Level Agreement.
 
 -Dan Wing

 
 ----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
 Return-Path: <[email-masked]>
 Received: from  rly-zc03.mx.aol.com (rly-zc03.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.3]) by
air-zc02.mail.aol.com (v56.26) with SMTP; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 11:22:20 -0500
 Received: from mail.proper.com (mail.proper.com [206.86.127.224])
 	  by rly-zc03.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0)
 	  with ESMTP id LAA03025;
 	  Fri, 12 Mar 1999 11:22:15 -0500 (EST)
 Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
 	by mail.proper.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) id HAA16230
 	for ietf-fax-bks; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 07:34:05 -0800 (PST)
 Received: from pita.cisco.com (pita.cisco.com [171.71.68.13])
 	by mail.proper.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA16226
 	for <[email-masked]>; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 07:34:04 -0800 (PST)
 Received: from pita.cisco.com (pita.cisco.com [171.71.68.13]) by
pita.cisco.com (8.8.5-Cisco.2-SunOS.5.5.1.sun4/8.6.5) with ESMTP id HAA01521;
Fri, 12 Mar 1999 07:39:21 -0800 (PST)
 Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 07:39:21 -0800 (PST)
 From: Dan Wing <[email-masked]>
 To: MAEDA toru <[email-masked]>
 cc: Michael Crawford <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
 Subject: Re: Full Mode and SLA
 In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
 Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
 MIME-Version: 1.0
 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
 Sender: [email-masked]
 Precedence: bulk
 List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-fax/mail-archive/>
 List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email-masked]?body=unsubscribe>