1. I think timely delivery IS a key attribute...however, this doesn't
relieve us from assuring the spec does not deal with devices that are valid
in terms of addressing (for instance I have an IP address resolved from a
DNS lookup) but are not currently up, connected, or operational). Graceful
response to the three "unavailable" conditions indicated MUST be addressed
in our deliberations. If its up, ok. If its not, gracefully exit.
2. The question is if IPP deals with unconnected devices...since one of the
charter goals appears to NOT make changes to IPP (I personally think it
ludicrous to prohibit changing a brand new spec, but am willing to back off
on that). If IPP doesn't deal gracefully with unconnected but well known
devices, then that is an issue for IPP AND anything we do here.
3. If at some time in the future we decide we need to address a fallback
mode (store and forward or re-connect attempts at a later time), then we can
discuss it then...for now, I am personally willing to leave the fallback
issue for later (if at all) discussion. Just as long as we address the
number 1 above.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Maulik Desai [SMTP:mdesai@auco.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 1999 7:36 AM
> To: GK@Dial.pipex.com
> Cc: ifx@pwg.org
> Subject: Re: Online and connected?
>
>
> Hi,
>
> > There is one aspect of the current QUALDOCS goals that is fundamentally
> > inconsistent with intermittent connection to the Internet: timely
> > delivery. So, we are faced with a choice: do we ignore intermittently
> > connected users, or do we relax the goals in some way to allow them to
> > participate?
>
> IMO, the requirement for timely delivery is one of the most important
> attributes and value-add of QualDocs and I would not like to see it being
> diluted. I wonder how many people share this view?
>
> > A corollary of this is that if IPP is to used then it will not, of
> itself,
> > address the needs of intermittently connected users. (This doesn't mean
> > that they cannot be addressed by additional future developments.) So
> maybe
> > the choice is really: do we defer consideration of intermittently
> > connected users as a later problem, or do we relax the goals in some way
> to
> > include them in the current work?
>
> I am in favor of deferring as opposed to relaxing the goals. This issue
> should
> be addressed in future, after current work is completed.
>
>
> -Maulik
>