Re: [MMUSIC] T.38 (Re: M-line philosophy (Re: Wisdom sought: Prioritization of codecs))

[Flemming Andreasen <[e-mail]>]

On 11/20/12 3:47 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> On 11/19/2012 05:57 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
>> On 11/19/12 10:50, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>>>> ...T.38 fax isn't one of them. Sadly.
>>>
>>> What's your scenario where T.38 fax over RTP is relevant when file 
>>> transfer over a reliable channel is available between the same 2 
>>> devices?
>>
>> This is a rat hole that I'm not going to dive too far into, but my 
>> understanding is that the tenacity of fax as an underlying technology 
>> has to do with a substantial body of U.S. case law that establishes 
>> that faxed legal documents are binding, while leaving the issue of 
>> transmission using a technology known by any other name unsettled.
>>
>> Is this a mind-numbingly stupid reason for it to hang on? Yeah, 
>> maybe. Does that change the facts on the ground? No. Not even a 
>> little bit.
> Sympathy. I've read the original judge's opinion in the English court 
> case that established telex as legally binding - he explicitly said "I 
> have this opinion not because it is technically sound, but because it 
> is necessary to keep commerce flowing". We're still there, and the fax 
> industry keeps chugging along because of it.
>
> Still, I don't see the compelling use case for T.38 fax over RTP *into 
> browsers*.

Why not if that's the only client I have ?

-- Flemming