Subject: Re: Call for Discussion on Response to Communication 1 from the ITU

From: Graham Klyne <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 10:59:38 +0100

At 11:57 03/09/99 -0400, James  Rafferty wrote:

>Iwasaki-san and Graham are both suggesting methods to build upon the
>current request/capabilities identification method, but in somewhat different
>ways.   
>
>Iwazaki-san and Graham, have you been able to work on a joint proposal?   
>Are there any key discussion points to review here on the list in advance of
>that (or in parallel)?

We are in discussion, but I have made less contribution to data than I
would have hoped.  But I remain very keen to find an answer to this matter.

>Resulting
>IDs would be individual submissions, since they are not currently part of
>our charter. 

Would you think it OK to discuss these extensions on the IETF-fax mailing
list, even though they are not strictly WG business?

>>(2.3) MDN response to indicate status of attachment processing. Require to 
>>indicate status of body part or parts vs message as a whole.
>>
>>
>>In discussion, it was suggested that the likely route is some kind of
>>extension of MDN response. This is feasible, 
>>but might make MDN responses quite long so probably any extensions should 
>>be sent only if explicitly requested. There is a need to work with VPIM on
>>this, as they are looking at addressing some similar issues.  This is
>>another topic for the small ad-hoc with Keith, as well as for followup on
>>the list.   

Something like this might tie in with the negotiation proosals that
Iwazai-san and I are working on.  The key point from which we both start is
that an Ifax sender indicates this in some way.

>Item 2.4 was not discussed directly at Oslo, but is related to item 2.1.
>Basically, the
>request is for a more complete solution on mechanisms for capabilities
>request and indication.  
>The potential work from Iwasaki/Klyne addresses this to a degree.   I had
>hoped
>that we would start to see some results from Rescap activity by now (at
>least in 
>proposal form), but there seems to be very little happening there.

Actually, there is a RESCAP proposal on the table
<draft-hoffman-rescap-protocol-01.txt>.  As yet, it has received very
little comment.  Its author (Paul Hoffman) has indicated concern that
nobody is interested, and that it will therefore not move forward.  Review
of this draft by other members of this group, and posting of comments to
<[email-masked]> might help to sway this perception.

#g

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

---

From: James Rafferty <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 09:19:29 -0400

Graham,  

Thanks for your comments.   

>list, even though they are not strictly WG business?
Yes, by all means.   It is an outgrowth of the WG work.    
><[email-masked]> might help to sway this perception.
Thanks for bringing this up.   I also encourge Fax WG members to look
at this proposal and consider whether it is a good direction to go 
for an enhanced Capabilties Identification.   
James
*------------------------------------------------*
James Rafferty			
President, Human Communications LLC
12 Kevin Drive			
Danbury, CT  06811-2901		
USA					
Voice/Fax:  +1-203-746-4367
Fax to email:  +1-603-925-5753  (Current Preferred Fax Number)
Email/Internet Fax:  [email-masked]
Alternate email : [email-masked],
 [email-masked] (chg from csi.com)

HC Web Site:  http://humancomm.com 
*---------------------------------------------------