RE: ffpim revised draft

["Dan Wing" <dwing@xxxxxxxxx>]

The introduction (section 1.0) mentions enhancements to
reliability, timliness, and capability negotiation.
What is the enhancement introduced by FFPIM for
reliability?

Section 1.1 mispells "RCPT-TO".

There is a missing section 3 (section numbers go from 1.1 directly
to 3).

Is there really an expectation that TIMELY will be implemented when
DSN hasn't been implemented in all these years?  I mean to say, why
does 3.0 require support of TIMELY, but doesn't require support
of NOTARY (DSN)?

Section 5 says that FFPIM is an extension of both RFC2305 and
RFC2532.  Does this mean that an FFPIM implementation must
conform to RFC2305 and RFC2532?  If so, FFPIM doesn't state
that anywhere but in section 5, which is the security section.

The draft appears to contain some non-ASCII characters (specifically
smart quotes).

-d

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-fax@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ietf-fax@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On
Behalf Of Dave Crocker
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 2:14 PM
To: IETF-FAX
Subject: ffpim revised draft
Importance: High


Folks,

A very tardy Christmas present...

I've posted a revised draft of FFPIM at:

<http://www.brandenburg.com/specifications/draft-ietf-fax-ffpim-03-03dc.txt>.

If there are no problems with it, it will be posted as the draft for Last
Call.

d/

----------
Dave Crocker <mailto:dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
TribalWise, Inc. <http://www.tribalwise.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850