Richard,
I can understand the IESG concerns about the concept of "legal" identity
exchange and "proof of delivery". As far as I know, the legal status of
facsimile messages today has been based on actual court decisions about
real life cases, rather than any initial legal protection for facsimile.
Personally, I am not convinced that these initial cases would give the
same result today, with the introduction of PC faxing where fax messages
might get lost for a number of reasons before actually being read by
the intended recipient.
I think we need to provide solutions that are as good as current
technology allow us, and take our chances whether a court decides in
an actual future case whether it was good enough to match facsimile.
Are you sure you want to have the Goals and Requirements as a
Standards Track RFC? I think a more common case is that
such documents get published as Informational, while the
actual technical specs go on the Standards Track. This might have
been handled a bit differently for the IETF FAX documents, as the
ITU does not make this distinction.
Carl-Uno
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Shockey [mailto:rshockey at ix.netcom.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 20, 1999 1:39 PM
> To: ifx at pwg.org> Cc: ipp at pwg.org; ietf-fax at imc.org> Subject: IPP> Comunication from the IESG on QUALDOCS Charter
>>> I've received a communication from the IESG on the status of
> our proposed
> charter.
>> In general, the IESG believes that we have some interesting
> ideas and it is
> willing to charter the work. In their view however, we should
> first develop
> the Goals and Requirements document and then amend the
> charter for the
> actual protocol.
>> Of particular concern to the IESG was the concept of "legal" identity
> exchange and "proof of delivery". The Security Area Directors are
> particularly concerned about the level of proof we might
> propose based on
> the current state of the art. We may need some more debate on
> what these
> terms actually mean in this context.
>> Consequently I've paired down the proposed charter a bit and
> I'd like some
> additional feedback on any other concepts that should be included or
> excluded, for that matter.
>> We already have a draft Goals document available for
> discussion so work can
> proceed.
>> So... please take a look ...
> ##############
>> Proposed Charter:
>> QUALDOCS - HIGH QUALITY DOCUMENT DISTRIBUTION
>> Chair(s): Richard Shockey
> <rshockey at ix.netcom.com> [PROPOSED]
>> Applications Area Director(s):
> Keith Moore <moore+iesg at cs.utk.edu>
> Patrik Faltstrom <paf at swip.net>
>> Area Advisor
> Keith Moore <moore+iesg at cs.utk.edu>
>> Mailing lists:
> General Discussion: ifx at pwg.org>> To Subscribe:
>>majordomo at pwg.org>> In Body: subscribe ifx [your-email-address]
>> The subject line should be blank
>> Archive:
>> <http://www.pwg.org/hypermail/ifx>
>> Description of Working Group:
>> The transmission and reception of final form documents (i.e.
> presented in a
> format that describes their final rendering) is an essential global
> communications service.
>> Several protocols and services have been developed over the years to
> facilitate document transmission, including the GSTN Fax service [ITU
> -T.30]. Within the IETF several protocols have been developed that
> facilitate document transmission, including RFC 2305 and RFC
> 2532 [Store
> and Forward Internet Fax] and the Internet Print Protocol [IPP].
>> Problem Statement:
>> Each of these services has one or more severe limitations or
> restrictions
> that may not be suitable for all document transmissions.
>> Among those limitations that could be applied to one or more
> of the above
> services:
>> 1. Limitations on Quality (resolution or color transmission)
> 2. Ability to repudiate request for receipt confirmation (MDN - DSN)
> 3. Lack of clear and unambiguous identification of sender and
> recipient
> 4. Lack of ability to adequately determine the success or
> failure of a
> document transmission during processing
> 5. Inability to establish reliable knowledge or negotiation
> of recipient
> capabilities
> 6. Inability to satisfy legal as well as general custom and
> practice for
> document transmission technologies, as typically applied to GSTN Fax.
> 7. Inability to establish transaction security, authenticity and
> confidentiality of document transmission
>> Work Group Objectives:
>> The purpose of the work group will be to investigate current
> work within
> the IETF and develop Goals and Requirements that can satisfy the
> requirements for reliable document transmission with a high degree of
> fidelity and reliability.
>> Study will be given to the requirements of 3rd party document
> delivery
> service providers.
>> QUALDOCS Goals and Requirements will build on the work of RFC 2542
> Terminology and Goals for Internet Fax.
>> The working group will closely coordinate its activities with
> other IETF
> Work Groups, including the Internet Print Protocol working
> group [IPP] and
> the Internet Fax working group [FAX] as well other document
> transmission
> related standards bodies and related work groups, notably the
> ITU-T Study
> Group 8. The group will take note of other areas and Work
> Groups within the
> IETF that may have direct bearing on reliable document delivery.
>> Relevant areas include:
>> - Security, Authentication and Encryption (TLS, etc)
> - Sender Identification (vCard)
> - RFC 2301 File Formats
> - Digital Signatures and Certificates
> - RESCAP
> - IMPP
> - ENUM
>>> Goals and Milestones:
>> May 2000 Submit Internet Draft of Goals and Objectives for Quality
> Document Distribution for publication as a Standards Track RFC.
>> July 2000 Re-submit QUALDOCS Charter to include Protocol
> Development for
> IESG approval.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Richard Shockey
> Shockey Consulting LLC
> 8045 Big Bend Blvd. Suite 110
> St. Louis, MO 63119
> Voice 314.918.9020
> eFAX Fax to EMail 815.333.1237 (Preferred for Fax)
> INTERNET Mail & IFAX : rshockey at ix.netcom.com> GSTN Fax 314.918.9015
> MediaGate iPost VoiceMail and Fax 800.260.4464
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>