IFX Mail Archive: RE: Fwd: RE: Question on FaxConnect Results..

IFX Mail Archive: RE: Fwd: RE: Question on FaxConnect Results..

RE: Fwd: RE: Question on FaxConnect Results..

Dan Wing (dwing@cisco.com)
Fri, 5 Feb 1999 08:02:41 -0800 (PST)

On Fri, 5 Feb 1999 09:29:13 -0600, Richard Shockey wrote:

>
> >Anything we do beyond that is gravy, I think.
> >
> >With the annoying complexities of timezones and daylight savings time, and
> >the reluctance of some IPP vendors to include a clock for IFX, it would be
> >nice to have a loss requirement for IFX, I think.
> >
> >-Dan Wing
>
> Loss requirement? I'm afraid you've lost me.. (pun not intended)

Sorry - my laptop's keyboard screwed me up (really!).

"... nice to have a less strict requirement for IFX, I think."

My post which explained the *reason* for watermarks explains why we
could get away with a less-strict timestamp for IFX. I don't recall if
I made the post to IFX or ietf-fax. In my post, I pointed out that
the date/time stamp used in GSTN-based fax today is generated by
the sender. While a receiver might generate its own date/time stamp,
there is no requirement for the receiver to do so. Thus, the receiver
(the printer in IFX) may not need to generate a timestamp on the output at
all.

-d