ned.freed@innosoft.com
Mon, 24 Jan 2000 22:06:12 -0800 (PST)
> With all respect to you and Keith, this recent thread and
> both of your remarks below come perilously close to saying
> that Quality of Service is entirely subjective and therefore
> interoperability testing is a waste of time for Internet
> Fax services.
I'm sorry, but I reject this conclusion absolutely. Nothing either Keith or I
have said has anything to do with making quality of service a subjective
measure. You are confusing the things we've both said about the
delivered/not delivered indication we must provide with quality of service.
The two have little if anything to do with each other.
> More thought should go into partial delivery, sure. But at
> the end of the day, there should be some entirely *objective*
> tests that determine conformance or non-conformance.
I fail to see how any of this has anything to with conformance or
non-conformance. If you're referring to specifying a minimum set of
types that have to be supported, that's all well and good, but again it
has little if anything to do with the problem at hand.
> Citing
> the technology problems of traditional Fax (analog lines)
> and Internet mail (wide variation in quality of deployed
> infrastructure) is a fruitless form of waffling.
On the contrary, if we fail to examine the past and learn from it we
will simply make them all over again. This is about as far from waffling
as it gets.
Ned
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Tue Jan 25 2000 - 08:11:48 IST