Subject: RE: [VPIM] RE: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-vaudreuil-mdnbis-00.txt

From: "McIntyre, Lloyd" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 14:51:18 -0700

I do not believe that current level of receivers would do more than alert
the use that there has been a processing error or warning (e.g. via some
form of audio or visual alerting)  based upon the processable portion of the
MDN response. An accompanying message to the user may be more verbose and/or
friendly than the text portion of the MDN response.

One may envision future implementations where the receiver may be
preauthorized to take action based on the nature of the disposition-modifier
and the contained capabilities string.

Lloyd

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Wing [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 1:38 PM
> To: Pete Resnick
> Cc: McIntyre, Lloyd; 'Shibata Tetsuya'; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [VPIM] RE: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-vaudreuil-mdnbis-00.txt
> 
> 
> > >Note we need vendors to both send _and_ receive the various
> > >permutations.  If all implementations only send and do not parse
> > >or validate or do something on receipt, it doesn't pass muster
> > >for Draft Standard.
> > 
> > Eudora (certainly on the Mac and I believe also on Windows) 
> displays 
> > the disposition values to the user as text. Now, it's not doing any 
> > real parsing; it's just displaying the contents of the 
> > message/disposition-notification part as text. Shouldn't that be 
> > enough to be a "receiving" client?
> 
> Yes, good point.  We do the same, and expect the user to take some
> action based on what they see.
> 
> -d
>

---

From: Hiroshi Tamura <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 08:03:28 +0900 (JST)

As I suggested before,
my company, Ricoh,  already a IFAX ***procuct*** that deals with
"dispatched" for success and "processed/error" for failure.

I am sure most IFAX manufacutures in Japan have the similar one,
for product or prototype. They are independent, of course.

But, I do not know whether all mandatory features in RFC2298 are supported.
So, it may not be enough for Draft Standard process.

Also, I add very ***personally***,
next month, some IFAX manufacures in Japan will have interoperability tests for
only this feature in MDN. About acknowledgement of receipt or decoding of TIFF-FX.

--
Hiroshi Tamura, Ricoh Company, LTD.
E-mail: [email-masked]

From: "McIntyre, Lloyd" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [VPIM] RE: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-vaudreuil-mdnbis-00.txt
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 14:51:18 -0700

---

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 16:20:34 -0700

What would be useful from these tests is to know which products send MDNs
other than (1) or (2), below, and the behavior of the products if they
receive (1), (2), or (3), below.

 1.  Disposition: automatic-action/MDN-sent-automatically; dispatched
 2.  Disposition: automatic-action/MDN-sent-automatically; processed/error
 3.  Disposition: automatic-action/MDN-sent-automatically; processed/xyzzy

Our implementation will transmit (1) or (2).  We will receive any form of
MDN - we actually only look for the Disposition line and send something
around up to 160 characters or the first CRLF sequence to the other fax
machine -- so we accept (1), (2), and (3), but we don't parse any of them.
(3) is as meaningful to us as (2).

As Greg mentioned, though, the MDN doesn't need to be computer parsed for it
to be useful to include in the Draft Standard.

-Dan Wing

> From: Hiroshi Tamura [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 4:03 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 19:30:37 -0400

> So, it may not be enough for Draft Standard process.

It is not necessary for any product to support all features; it is only
necessary for each feature to be supported by two products for sending
and two (perhaps different) products for receiving.

Keith

---

From: Hiroshi Tamura <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 13:34:48 +0900 (JST)

Keith,

Thanks for your comment.

> and two (perhaps different) products for receiving.

Yes, you are right. 

My above comment is not good. What I want to say is:
I do not read the I-D, so, all features the editor intends might not
be supported.

Regards,

---

From: Hiroshi Tamura <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 13:42:08 +0900 (JST)

Dan,

> (3) is as meaningful to us as (2).

A Question.
Does your receiver distingush "processed/error" from "processed"?

Regards,

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 09:32:38 -0400

The internet fax implementer's guide
(draft-ietf-fax-implementers-guide-07.txt) also specifies the use of
processed/warning, as in:

Disposition: automatic-action/MDN-sent-automatically; processed/warning

Does anyone implement that?

	Tony

---

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 09:40:38 -0700

> Does your receiver distingush "processed/error" from "processed"?

No - the text is sent, as-is, to the remote PSTN fax machine.  It will also
send "DanWingHasAMustache" if that is on the Disposition: line.  It doesn't
examine the contents of the text at all.

-d

---

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 09:46:03 -0700

No, we don't.

In our TIFF decoder, we do track situations where pointers were invalid
or offsets were wrong, and those are counted.  However, the mail application
doesn't look at that warning counter when generating the MDN; we're only
looking at the error boolean when generating the MDN.

So we could add this pretty easily, but at the time we coded this we
felt that "processed/warning" could be misinterpreted.  After all, the
user can't do anything to fix their implementation to avoid the warning.
All that "processed/warning" really tells you is "I received something
that I found difficult to parse, and there may be some side-effects
because of that difficulty."

I wouldn't complain if it were dropped from the MDNbis.

-d

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
> Behalf Of Tony Hansen
> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 6:33 AM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [VPIM] RE: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-vaudreuil-mdnbis-00.txt
>
>
>