Subject: RE: Last Call: SMTP Service Extension for Content Negotiation toP roposed Standard

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 09:24:04 -0700 (PDT)

> Ned "sed":

> > ...fax is dead technology, who cares???

> FAX is NOT dead at NASA.

Actually, I never said anything of the kind, nor did I agree with any such
statement. Robert Elz said this. My response was merely that even if you
believe this is true the current proposal may still be of importance since it
has utility outside of the FAX space.

				Ned

---

From: "COLES, RICHARD J. (JSC-EV) (LM)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 09:35:59 -0500

FAX is NOT dead at NASA.

We send a LOT of documents to other centers that cannot be sent via e-mail
(photocopies of shipping documents, flight manifests, older engineering
drawings, etc [things that are not available electronically]).  That is why
I am so interested in seeing this work completed.

I just don't comment much because I don't have anything to say.  I am
learning this stuff as I go, and not very well [datacomm is not my strongest
subject :) - I do video for Shuttle & Space Station, but I recognize a money
saver when I see it]

My main interest is that it will save NASA (therefore the taxpayers) LOTS of
dollars in long distance charges.  I would estimate around a million a year,
but I have no data to back that up.

I will try to get some data if anyone wants to see it (write me privately -
if I get enough requests, I will post it, else I will send it privately).

So, remember, while you are working on this, you are preparing the way for
TAX savings (it's YOUR money).  Does that encourage you to continue?

And if you REALLY think that fax is dead, why are you working so hard to
finish it??  (I know, because the IESG/IMC/etc says to...)

Regards to all & a special "howdy" to Dan Wing/RJC

Richard Coles
Lockheed Martin, in support of
NASA/Johnson Space Center/Houston

[email-masked]  (or as shown above)

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 1:43 AM
To: Robert Elz
Cc: Dave Crocker; Keith Moore; [email-masked]; John C Klensin;
Alexey Melnikov; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Last Call: SMTP Service Extension for Content Negotiation
toProposed Standard

> First, let me say that I haven't read the draft, and don't intend to.
> So, if you want to ignore my comments (questions really) feel free.

Fascinating. Although your detailed understanding of how this works is
fairly
far off the mark, you nevertheless have suggested a viable approach that I,
at
least, hadn't considered.

> But from what I have picked up from the (smallish) number of messages
> from an even smaller set of people (no great surprise, fax is dead
> technology, who cares???) on the ietf list in the past day or so, I
> surmise that this protocol work something like the following.

	< balance of text deleted for Net economy >

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 15:41:03 -0400

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>>>>> "JSC-EV)" == JSC-EV) (LM <COLES> writes:
    JSC-EV)> FAX is NOT dead at NASA.

    JSC-EV)> We send a LOT of documents to other centers that cannot be sent via e-mail
    JSC-EV)> (photocopies of shipping documents, flight manifests, older engineering
    JSC-EV)> drawings, etc [things that are not available electronically]).  That is why
    JSC-EV)> I am so interested in seeing this work completed.

  Do you really send faxes? Is this what you really want to do? I mean to say
you want to negotiate 9600 baud connections over the Internet using some kind
of VoIP?

  Or do you mean that you want a way to send a binary piece of data
(representing an image) from one party to another in an automated, batch
oriented way.

  Perhaps I can introduce you to a protocol called "FTP". 
  It has rather interesting authentication features that are in widespread use.
  If you prefer, there is another protocol called "HTTP" that might
help. I've heard it is pretty popular now. If you want batch transfer with
retries, there is also UUCP-over-TCP. Port 540.

====

  Seriously, we need *LESS* junk sent by email, not more.

  The whole FAX over email problem is simply endemic of the fact that we have
no(%) *end-user* to *end-user* file transfer protocols. 
  (To be useful, we would ideally need a global PKI, but we can certainly
start simpler)

]       ON HUMILITY: to err is human. To moo, bovine.           |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] [email-masked] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another NetBSD/notebook using, kernel hacking, security guy");  [