OK. Don has indicated the great features that machine readable will support.
Jay has brought up the likelihood that the "real-time notifications are
highly desirable within
an intranet environment" and will justify the client development effort for
INDP.
I don't think that there is any major disagreement with these points. But
the question relates to the internet environment. Although there has been
comment that the network could be modified to allow INDP access, I suggest
that there will be a substantial number of instances where this is not
possible. The advantages of mail-to is that it will get through in a much
larger proportion on instances, and it does not require router/firewall
modification. Therefore, if mail-to includes machine readable info, the
nifty application using machine readable information is usable in a larger
number of instances. The disadvantage is that it requires a embedded
mail-server or a constantly running mail client to approach real time
notification. If, as a group, this burden is too high to justify allowing
machine readable to be included, then it should not be included.
But since (I think) we have elected not to mandate an approach, and Bob has
outlined what appears to be a simple way to allow (not require) machine
readable information over mail-to, it seems unreasonable to preclude using
this feature. Indeed, although I was among the first to say that I did not
see a need for it, I see no reason not to allow it.
William A. Wagner (Bill Wagner)
Director of Technology
Imaging Division
NETsilicon, Inc.
781-398-4588
-----Original Message-----
From: Jay Martin [mailto:jkm at underscore.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 10:26 AM
To: bwagner at digprod.com
Cc: ipp at pwg.org
Subject: Re: IPP>NOT mailto feature from IETF meeting (RE: IPP> ADM -
TheIPP Notification I-Ds will now go the IESG)
Bill,
> I suggest that comment about "serious client-side
> installations to make this work" applies even more to INDP. If we are
going
> to use your objective criteria, we should apply it consistently.
Thanks for pointing that out. Of course INDP will require serious
client-side support. However, it is thoroughly believed by one and
all (right?) that real-time notifications are highly desirable within
an intranet environment. Hence, the benefits ought to outweigh the
costs. In other words, most PWG folks believe there are indeed
compelling scenarios to justify real-time notifications, and hence,
INDP support on the client.
It's the fact that no such wide-reaching, compelling reasons exist outside
the firewall that make real-time notifications--and hence, machine-readable
code embedded in email messages--practical given the infrastructure costs.
Thanks for pointing out the differences.
...jay
"Wagner,William" wrote:
>> Jay,
>> OK. In the interests of a reasonable discussion...
>> I agree that no compelling reason for machine readable in the mail-to has
> been presented. I also note your comment that
> " I'll bet big money that the COSTS substantially outweigh
> the BENEFITS. Remember, you're talking some serious client-side
> installations to make this work as you describe".
>> But then, aside from Novell's application and that fact that it is "cool"
> (which I think it is), I have not seen a compelling reason presented for
> machine readable information in any of the other notification delivery
> methods including INDP (or indeed, for INDP with human readable either)
and
> I suggest that comment about "serious client-side
> installations to make this work" applies even more to INDP. If we are
going
> to use your objective criteria, we should apply it consistently.
>> William A. Wagner (Bill Wagner)
> Director of Technology
> Imaging Division
> NETsilicon, Inc.
> 781-398-4588
>> ...jay