Hiroshi Tamura | 1 Mar 11:45 2001
Picon

Our slot: Monday 13:00-15:00 (still preliminary)

Folks,

Our slot is allocated on Monday 13:00-15:00.
It is still preliminary, although I do not think it changes.

Sooner or later, it will be fixed.

Regards,
--
Hiroshi Tamura, Co-chair of IETF-FAX WG
E-mail: tamura <at> toda.ricoh.co.jp

Dan Wing | 2 Mar 02:02 2001
Picon

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-maeda-faxwg-fax-processing-status-00.txt

At 10:41 AM 2/22/01 +0900, MAEDA toru wrote:
>Wing-san
>
>We have a lot of discussion about DSN and MDN.
>I may be still confused in DSN and MDN.
>Please check my idea as follows.
>
>Basically DSN returns delivery status, and MDN returns processing status.
>Since my idea is to return the processing status from the receiver, the 
>draft describes to use MDN.
>When the Full Mode receiver get ifax mail from the server via POP, MDN 
>will be returned.
>When the Full Mode receiver get ifax mail from the server via SMTP, DSN 
>and MDN will be returned.

Can we add this to a document somewhere -- that a POP (or IMAP) 
implementation is expected to return MDN, and an SMTP-only implementation 
is expected to honor DSN and return MDN?

Thanks,
-Dan Wing

>DSN will be returned when the mail is received, and MDN will be returned 
>when the mail is printed or processed.
>
>
>Regards.
>
>Toru Maeda
>
(Continue reading)

Hiroshi Tamura | 2 Mar 03:20 2001
Picon

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-maeda-faxwg-fax-processing-status-00.txt

maeda-san,

> >Basically DSN returns delivery status, and MDN returns processing status.
> >Since my idea is to return the processing status from the receiver, the 
> >draft describes to use MDN.
> >When the Full Mode receiver get ifax mail from the server via POP, MDN 
> >will be returned.
> >When the Full Mode receiver get ifax mail from the server via SMTP, DSN 
> >and MDN will be returned.
> 
> Can we add this to a document somewhere -- that a POP (or IMAP) 
> implementation is expected to return MDN, and an SMTP-only implementation 
> is expected to honor DSN and return MDN?

That's what I was saying when we talked a few days ago.

In smtp-only case,
only DSN with the information you propose is enough.

Regards,
--
Hiroshi Tamura, Ricoh Company, LTD.
E-mail: tamura <at> toda.ricoh.co.jp

Dan Wing | 2 Mar 03:36 2001
Picon

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-maeda-faxwg-fax-processing-status-00.txt

At 11:20 AM 3/2/01 +0900, Hiroshi Tamura wrote:
>maeda-san,
>
> > >Basically DSN returns delivery status, and MDN returns processing 
> status.
> > >Since my idea is to return the processing status from the receiver, 
> the
> > >draft describes to use MDN.
> > >When the Full Mode receiver get ifax mail from the server via POP, MDN 
>
> > >will be returned.
> > >When the Full Mode receiver get ifax mail from the server via SMTP, 
> DSN
> > >and MDN will be returned.
> >
> > Can we add this to a document somewhere -- that a POP (or IMAP)
> > implementation is expected to return MDN, and an SMTP-only 
> implementation
> > is expected to honor DSN and return MDN?
>
>That's what I was saying when we talked a few days ago.

Sorry, I'm slow.

>In smtp-only case,
>only DSN with the information you propose is enough.

-d

(Continue reading)

Dave Crocker | 2 Mar 09:59 2001

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-maeda-faxwg-fax-processing-status-00.txt

At 10:20 AM 3/2/2001, Hiroshi Tamura wrote:
> > Can we add this to a document somewhere -- that a POP (or IMAP)
> > implementation is expected to return MDN, and an SMTP-only implementation
> > is expected to honor DSN and return MDN?
>
>That's what I was saying when we talked a few days ago.
>
>In smtp-only case,
>only DSN with the information you propose is enough.

What is the purpose of these different "signals".  In other words, why is 
it useful for Internet fax to have different notices being returned, 
depending upon whether POP or SMTP are being used?

d/

----------
Dave Crocker   <mailto:dcrocker <at> brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464

Dave Crocker | 3 Mar 02:31 2001

ffpim upgrade

Folks,

A revised draft of FFPIM has been submitted to internet-drafts.

Actually, two were sent.  One quickly, with no changes, and the second just 
before the deadline, with enhancements.

The enhancements respond to issues raised over recent months, especially 
with regard to a direct transmission mode.  Most of the "enhancements" are 
placeholders.  They cite the issue but do not attempt to provide normative 
text to resolve them.

The purpose of the placeholders is to seek comment from the working group 
about the suggested changes to be made.

If the revised draft does not get distributed, I will put it on my web 
page.  (My access is constrained now, or I would already have made it 
available.)

d/

----------
Dave Crocker   <mailto:dcrocker <at> brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464

Hiroshi Tamura | 5 Mar 02:20 2001
Picon

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-maeda-faxwg-fax-processing-status-00.txt

> > > Can we add this to a document somewhere -- that a POP (or IMAP)
> > > implementation is expected to return MDN, and an SMTP-only implementation
> > > is expected to honor DSN and return MDN?
> >
> >That's what I was saying when we talked a few days ago.
> >
> >In smtp-only case,
> >only DSN with the information you propose is enough.
> 
> What is the purpose of these different "signals".  In other words, why is 
> it useful for Internet fax to have different notices being returned, 
> depending upon whether POP or SMTP are being used?

My comment may not satisfy you.

Here, I am saying that both DSN and MDN are not necessary
in an SMTP-only implementation and only one notification is enough.

I am not the one who proposes. In case of DSN,
I think the same format Maeda-san proposes could be used.

According to his ideas, to reply received pages is important.
I do not intend to have different "signals".

I think Maeda-san comments sooner or later.

Regards,
--
Hiroshi Tamura, Ricoh Company, LTD.
E-mail: tamura <at> toda.ricoh.co.jp
(Continue reading)

Hiroshi Tamura | 5 Mar 10:23 2001
Picon

Re: ffpim upgrade

Dave, thanks for updating FFPIM.

> A revised draft of FFPIM has been submitted to internet-drafts.

> The enhancements respond to issues raised over recent months, especially 
> with regard to a direct transmission mode.  Most of the "enhancements" are 
> placeholders.  They cite the issue but do not attempt to provide normative 
> text to resolve them.

I thought, at first, FFPIM had no relation with the direct transmission mode.
But if WG agrees, it is ok for me.

> The purpose of the placeholders is to seek comment from the working group 
> about the suggested changes to be made.

I hope Maeda-san and Toyoda-san comment after it is circulated.

Regards,
--
Hiroshi Tamura, Ricoh Company, LTD.
E-mail: tamura <at> toda.ricoh.co.jp

Hiroshi Tamura | 5 Mar 11:46 2001
Picon

FAX WG agenda at Minneapolis

Folks,

Our draft agenda is below.

If you have comments, please let me know by March 8.

------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Agenda bashing                           1 min

2. Status of Draft Standard consideration
2.1 TIFF-FX                                 8 min
- draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-09.txt
- draft-ietf-fax-tiff-regbis-02.txt

2.2 Addressing				    2 min
- draft-ietf-fax-minaddr-v2-02.txt
- draft-ietf-fax-faxaddr-v2-02.txt

3 Targeted for Draft Standard               3 min
3.1 Service
- draft-ietf-fax-service-v2-03.txt

4 Targeted for Informational
4.1 Implementers Guide                      1 min
- draft-ietf-fax-implementers-guide-06.txt

5 On-going Internet-Drafts
5.1 Gateway issue                           15 min
- draft-ietf-fax-gateway-protocol-03.txt
(Continue reading)

MAEDA toru | 5 Mar 12:20 2001
Picon
Picon

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-maeda-faxwg-fax-processing-status-00.txt

Wing-san

Thank you very much for comments.
I will add
"a POP (or IMAP) implementation is expected to return MDN,
and an SMTP-only implementation is expected to honor DSN and return MDN"
in the next version of ID.

Reagrds.

Toru Maeda

At 17:02 01/03/01 -0800, Dan Wing wrote:
>At 10:41 AM 2/22/01 +0900, MAEDA toru wrote:
>>Wing-san
>>
>>We have a lot of discussion about DSN and MDN.
>>I may be still confused in DSN and MDN.
>>Please check my idea as follows.
>>
>>Basically DSN returns delivery status, and MDN returns processing status.
>>Since my idea is to return the processing status from the receiver, the 
>>draft describes to use MDN.
>>When the Full Mode receiver get ifax mail from the server via POP, MDN 
>>will be returned.
>>When the Full Mode receiver get ifax mail from the server via SMTP, DSN 
>>and MDN will be returned.
>
>Can we add this to a document somewhere -- that a POP (or IMAP) 
>implementation is expected to return MDN, and an SMTP-only implementation 
(Continue reading)


Gmane