McIntyre, Lloyd (Lloyd.McIntyre@pahv.xerox.com)
Mon, 27 Aug 2001 16:54:16 -0700
My understanding is that the "dispatched" feature may be retained if
information can be provided to verify that there are interoperable
implementations.
Tamura-san is it possible to have two or more manufacturers document
interoperability of sending and receiving MDN with the dispatched feature?
Lloyd
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Wing [mailto:dwing@cisco.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 4:22 PM
> To: Hiroshi Tamura; gregv@lucent.com
> Cc: receipt@cs.utk.edu; vpim@lists.neystadt.org; ietf-fax@imc.org
> Subject: RE: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-vaudreuil-mdnbis-00.txt
>
>
>
> > > Note that the requirements for draft standard are explicit that
> > all features
> > > and options need to have at least two, interoperable
> implementations. If
> > > they are still useful, the unimplemented dispositions
> deleted from this
> > > document may be standardized at a later date as an MDN extension.
> >
> > I do not read all, but I say,
> >
> > Some Ifax devices already use:
> > "dispatched" or "processed" without modifiers
> > when succesfully decoding the received TIFF-FX file
> > "processed/error" in the case of the failure.
>
> Those devices will remain compliant with the Proposed
> Standard RFC2298,
> but won't be compliant with the Draft Standard that Greg is authoring.
>
>
> As soon as Greg's document becomes an RFC, I'll ask our development
> group here in Cisco to bring our implementation in line with his
> new Draft Standard.
>
> -d
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Tue Aug 28 2001 - 02:54:32 IDT