Subject: Re: draft FAX WG meeting minutes at San Diego

From: Graham Klyne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 11:18:26 +0000

At 05:10 PM 12/18/00 +0900, Hiroshi Tamura wrote:
>Folks,
>
>
>So, if there are corrections, additions or modifications that
>you would like to have, please let me know *SOON*.
>If possible, I would have them by *December 26*.

>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>5 PNDN (Partial Non-Delivery Notifications)
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Eric Burger presented.
>- draft-ema-vpim-pndn-02.txt
>
>It is the draft from EMA/VPIM. Current DSN only reports "all success"
>or "all failure". PNDN is useful if one needs per-part reporting.
>For example, if some critical parts delivered and others not, sender may
>want to consider successful parts delivered, report on unsuccessful parts.
>VPIM WG dropped PNDN, because critical content draft is satisfactory.
>PNDN format is based on DSN format and there are some extensions.
>
>At the meeting, there were no supports to include it in Ifax. Fax WG
>decided not to continue with the specification. The I-D will be dropped.

Strictly, I think it is not in our gift to "drop" this I-D.  I suggest 
deleting the last sentence.

#g

------------
Graham Klyne
([email-masked])

---

From: Graham Klyne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 11:24:01 +0000

At 05:10 PM 12/18/00 +0900, Hiroshi Tamura wrote:
>To editors of I-Ds:
>Please confirm the milestone section. If there are not appropriate ones,
>please let Claudio and me know and modify it.

>Jan 2001        Final draft for timely delivery
>Mar 2001        WG Last Call
>
>Jan 2001        Final draft for content negotiaton for fax
>Mar 2001        WG Last Call

It was my expectation that WG last calls would happen sooner after the 
final drafts were presented.  E.g. mid-Feb 2001.

I think these ideas have been floating around for so long now that we 
should try to wrap them up more quickly.  Of course, if any major 
difficulties should be noted then we need to take the time needed to sort 
them out;  it is my view that an earlier WG last call would help to flush 
out any such difficulties.

>The followings were not addressed at the meeting,
>but they must to be confirmed sooner or later.
>
>Jan 2001        Final draft of FFPIM
>Mar 2001        WG Last Call

I think the finalization of FFPIM will depend somewhat on consensus for 
negotiation and timely delivery.  But it should not be a big document.  As 
such it may be more realistic to have the final draft and start of WG last 
call at about the end of WG last call for the negotiation/timely documents.

#g

------------
Graham Klyne
([email-masked])