IFX Mail Archive: Re: Charter Bashing II

IFX Mail Archive: Re: Charter Bashing II

Re: Charter Bashing II

Richard Shockey (rshockey@ix.netcom.com)
Wed, 24 Mar 1999 11:26:57 -0600

>>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@ix.netcom.com
eFAX 815.333.1237
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<