At 02:11 PM 1/13/2000 -0800, you wrote:
>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.
I think you are right as well. I cut that language out of the revised
charter text. Its just not that important.
>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.
Amen to that.
>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.
You are entirely correct 2542 is Informational and our goals document
should be the same .. I'll modify that before I send the charter to the IESG.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<