Subject: Addition to agenda..

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 19:10:27 -0500

Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 08:13:07 -0800 (PST)
From: Dan Wing <[email-masked]>
To: KITAGAWA Takurou <[email-masked]>
cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [IETF-FAX] Addition to Agenda.
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-fax/mail-archive/>
List-ID: <ietf-fax.imc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email-masked]?body=unsubscribe>

A few comments on this proposal:

1. E.164 -> DNS mapping works just as well as this proposal and scales
to the largest enterprise or telephone company.

2. Is there supposed to be an Internet-wide authority on the
"best" offramp for everyone to use?

3. Why HTTP instead of LDAP?  Because HTTP is ubiquitous?

-Dan Wing

On 28 Mar 2000 23:29 +0900, KITAGAWA Takurou wrote:

> 
> [email-masked] writes:
> 
> > Dear Colleagues,
> > 
> > A person asked me that he would like to make a presentation
> > at our meeting about Fax-Gateway issue.
> > 
> > He requests only 5 minutes, so Allocchio-san and I accepted it.
> > Before closing our meeting, he will do it.
> > 
> > I do not know if his idea is good/suitable for our wg/
> > useful or not. Because it is not based on SMTP.
> > 
> > Anyway, he promised to me that he will circulte his detailed idea
> > in our ML, sooner or later.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > --
> > Hiroshi Tamura([email-masked])
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Directory Server for Internet Fax with HTTP and CGI
> 
> Abstract
> 
> A d