>It was proposed in the BOF that some due diligence be undertaken on all
>existing protocols that might be suitable for examination, however I suspect
>that this WG will be permitted to focus on only one for development.
I agree. For the WG to try to develop more than one protocol would be
madness, IMO. But I do think evaluation of more than one candidate is a
most appropriate starting point.
>Proposed Charter:
>
>QUALDOCS HIGH QUALITY DOCUMENT DISTRIBUTION
>Description of Working Group:
>
>The transmission and reception of non-alterable documents is an essential
>communications medium.
How crucial is this idea of "non-alterable"? Should this even be an issue,
let alone a charter constraint?
>1. Limitations on Quality (resolution or color transmission)
>2. Ability to repudiate request for receipt confirmation (MDN - DSN)
>3. Lack of clear and unambiguous legal identification of sender or recipient
.................................................................^^
"and"? We would like to identify both, wouldn't we?
>4. Lack of ability to directly monitor progress of document transmission
Is this a base requirement, or a means to address a base requirement (e.g.
knowing when transmission has failed in a timely manner)?
>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. (Typically these are applied to GSTN Fax)
................................................^^^^^^^^^ "as" ?
>7. Inability to establish security and confidentiality of document
transmission
...........................^^^^^^^^
"security" is such a vague term: I would suggest "authenticity and
confidentiality". Or did you have something else in mind?
>Work Group Objectives:
>
>The purpose of the work group will be to investigate current work within the
>IETF and identify protocols, procedures and policies that can satisfy the
>requirements for reliable document transmission with a high degree of
fidelity
>and reliability.
>
>Essential attributes for Quality Document Delivery Services include:
>
>A. Timely Delivery
>B. Security
.........^^^^^^^^ Add ": authenticity and confidentiality"?
>C. Quality of Output
I suggest: "High quality output with sender control of presentation detail"
>D. Legal identity exchange
>E. Capabilities exchange between sender and recipient
I suggest: "Document format selection based on confirmed capabilities of
sender and/or receiver". ("capability exchange" sounds more like a
solution than a goal.)
>F. Proof of Delivery (Receipt Notification)
....................................^ "Non-repudiable"
>
>The WG will not propose any new protocols only extensions or augmentations to
..........................................^ ","
>existing or proposed Standards Track protocols.
>Goals and Milestones:
>
>May 1999: Conclude investigation on existing protocols for use as Quality
>Document Distribution base line.
>
>June 1999 : Submit Internet Draft of Goals and Objectives for Quality
Document
>Distribution or submit addendum to RFC 2542 (Goals and Terminology for
Internet
>Fax)
I think the investigation of existing protocols cannot be meaningfully
completed without the "goals and terminology" draft. I'd swap the dates
for these two.
>September 1999 : Submit Internet Draft for Quality Document Distribution
>Protocol
>
>December 1999 : Submit Internet Draft of Quality Document Gateway Services
#g
------------
Graham Klyne
(GK@ACM.ORG)