Re: draft-ietf-fax-esmtp-conneg-08.txt

Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Tue, 15 July 2003 13:48 UTC

Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h6FDmXqt080300 for <ietf-smtp-bks@above.proper.com>; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 06:48:33 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-smtp@mail.imc.org)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h6FDmXcX080299 for ietf-smtp-bks; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 06:48:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-smtp@mail.imc.org using -f
Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (h80ad2707.async.vt.edu [128.173.39.7]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h6FDmSqt080283; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 06:48:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) with ESMTP id h6F8ClMQ006684; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 04:12:49 -0400
Message-Id: <200307150812.h6F8ClMQ006684@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.3 04/04/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev
To: Hiroshi Tamura <tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp>
Cc: ietf-smtp@imc.org, ietf-fax@imc.org
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-fax-esmtp-conneg-08.txt
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 15 Jul 2003 14:43:43 +0900." <20030715.144343.01366541.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
References: <20030626.085226.01368429.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> <20030715.144343.01366541.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_-257853914P"; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 04:12:44 -0400
Sender: owner-ietf-smtp@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-smtp/mail-archive/>
List-ID: <ietf-smtp.imc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 14:43:43 +0900, Hiroshi Tamura said:

> I asked your comments as below, but nothing.
> Please comment NOW if there are things to suggest/discuss about the document.
> If not, FAX WG will request the IESG consideration again, sooner or later.

I suspect the flame wars on this topic from July of last year when the -03 draft was raised
have left a bad taste in everybody's mouth, and nobody wants to get involved again.

There was serious disagreement on the SMTP side of the fence as to whether it
was possible to implement this correctly - my re-reading of such mail as I saved
indicates a number of people who were quite resistant to the idea of an automatic
downgrading without any indication that information had been lost (for instance,
consider the case of a color fax downgraded to B/W - if the loss of color is significant,
this could be a problem.

In addition, it was quite unclear how this would interact with RFC1847-style signatures.

I have *NOT* checked if the -08 draft adequately addresses these issues.