Ultimately, we have to combine the expertise of all of the expert
subgroups into a single application. At the present time, there are
enough expert subgroups that I don't think we need more to go off and
design the pieces, we just need the group that integrates the pieces
into a particular application profile.
Layering may be useful if you're really trying to solve a complex
problem, but I don't think the problem is complex. Let's not make it
harder than it is.
I agree that 'internet fax' and 'internet distributed printing' are
similar; in fact, I think that 'internet distributed printing' is a
good start for the necessary protocols for doing real-time fax.
On the other hand, printing is different enough from faxing (who owns
the printer, is the print unsolicited, what are the accounting &
status reporting & privacy requirements) that printing might well wind
up with a different application profile than faxing. Let's hope that
the differences are all there for a good reason.
# As I have asserted previously, the proper split is between PROTOCOL and
# CONTENT. There are many different contents that should be transportable by
# the same protocol.
I agree that PROTOCOL should be split from CONTENT. But don't confuse
process ("do we have a separate PROTOCOL and CONTENT group?") with
product.
# However, I am also a realist, and will settle for possible future split of
# the work in this fashion. In the meantime, I think I have already achieved
# a change in the charter, specifically in the list by Larry, in that at
# least the NUMBERING of the items should be removed. Fair enough?
No, not really. I didn't come up with those numbers, they were in
Dave Crocker's proposal, I just did wordsmithing. But let me not
detract from the glory.
Regards,
Larry