>>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?
Maybe not ... maybe this is a bad term I guess I was trying to position
this as not a way to send some .doc or binary file attachment etc. I can
see cutting this out. Just stay with "documents"
>>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?
Yes ..thank you..
>>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)?
Thanks for the clarification ..yes I was assuming transmission or
processing failure.
>>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" ?
OK... no problem.
>>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?
No.. the clarification seems appropriate.
>.........^^^^^^^^ Add ": authenticity and confidentiality"?
>>C. Quality of Output
>I suggest: "High quality output with sender control of presentation detail"
Done....
>>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.)
Great...
>>F. Proof of Delivery (Receipt Notification)
>....................................^ "Non-repudiable"
>
Super ...
>>>>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.
Quite reasonable...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Richard Shockey
Shockey Consulting LLC
8045 Big Bend Blvd. Suite 110
St. Louis, MO 63119
Voice 314.918.9020
Fax 314.918.9015
INTERNET Mail & IFAX : rshockey at ix.netcom.com
eFAX 815.333.1237
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<