Subject: Interworking test about RFC2304

From: "Toyoda, Kiyoshi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 17:18:36 +0900

Folks

TOYOCOM and M.G.C.S(Matsushita Graphic Communication Systems,inc.) had 
interworking test about RFC2304 on the 28th Jun in Japan. We report 
the summary as below.

1. Object
Interworking test has been conducted to clarify the issue below. 

At 08.40 +0900 00-04-27, Hiroshi Tamura wrote:
>- draft-ietf-fax-faxaddr-v2-00.txt, draft-ietf-fax-minaddr-v2-00.txt
>
>Interworking is not enough, especially for /T33S issue.
>T33S conforms to ITU-T T.33(Facsimile routing utilizing the subaddress).
>It is kind of an application profile. There are fax machines
>that support T.30 SUB signal. But there are very few implementations
>about T.33. A question was raised about how to validate
>if two independent implementations interwork for addressing.
>About this question, there was an opinion it is that gateways can
>handle the specified address correctly.

2. Test Method 

2-1 TOYOCOM sends the data to the OffRamp Gateway of M.G.C.S. (figure 1) . 

  ---------           ------------         ----------        ------
 | IFAX    |         | OffRamp GW |       |Onramp GW |      |      |
 | TOYOCOM | ------->|  M.G.C.S.  |------>| DX-2000  |----->| PC   |
 |_________| Internet|____________| PSTN  |__________| LAN  |______|

                           figure 1

1)IFAX of TOYOCOM sends the data with the following address formula. 
  FAX=[email-masked]

　FAX=+81312345677/T33S=[email-masked]

　FAX=+81312345677/T33S=[email-masked]

　[email-masked]

　FAX=+81312345677/T33S=[email-masked]　and
　FAX=+81312345677/T33S=[email-masked]　

　/FAX=+81-3-12345677/T33S=1234/@ifax.mgcs.mei.co.jp　and
　/FAX=+81.3.12345677/T33S=5678/@ifax.mgcs.mei.co.jp　

2)Offramp Gateway of M.G.C.S. sends the fax to DX-2000 with 
  the addresss 03-12345677 including sub-address 1234 and/or 5678. 

3)DX-2000(IFAX made by Panafax) sends e-mail to PC which has
  the corresponding e-mail address of the sub address.
  DX-2000 is used for verification method of sub address field in 
  FIF. 

2-2 M.G.C.S. sends the data to the OffRamp Gateway of TOYOCOM (figure 2) .

  ---------           ------------         ----------        ------
 | IFAX    |         | OffRamp GW |       |Onramp GW |      |      |
 | M.G.C.S | ------->|  TOYOCOM   |------>| DX-2000  |----->| PC   |
 |_________| Internet|____________| PSTN  |__________| LAN  |______|

                           figure 2

1)M.G.C.S. sends the data to the OffRamp Gateway of TOYOCOM (figure 2).
  FAX=[email-masked]

　FAX=+81312345677/T33S=[email-masked]
 
  etc.

2),3) repeat same procedure as article 2-1.

3. Results
We satisfied the items of "RFC2304 Interworking Configuration Matrix" 
which has deliverd to Fax Connect II. The items are below.

1) Minimum Specification (MUST)
All implementations supporting this FAX over e-mail address format MUST
supports as a minimum the specification described in this document(RFC 
2304)

2) qualif-type1 element  (REQUIRED)
The minimal addressing for the fax service also requires support for
a "qualif-type1" elment. This element is an OPTIONAL element of the 
fax address, but its support, when present, is REQUIRED.

3) Fax address minimum specification  (REQUIRED)
The minimal specification of a fax in e-mail address is:
fax-address = fax-mbox["T33S="sub-addr]
fax-mbox = "FAX="global-phone

4) Multiple T.33 Subaddresses  (MUST)
In case a particular service requires multiple T.33 subaddresses,
and these subaddresses need to be given on the same "fax-mbox",
multiple "fax-email" elements will be used.

Kiyoshi Toyoda

---

From: Claudio Allocchio <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 11:55:36 +0100

Toyoda-san,

thanks indded for the interworking tests result.

I'm currently preparing the clarified versions of RFC2303 and RFC2304
for DRAFT Standard submission; now we can also add the interworking test
report to progress the approval.

Please forward our thanks to all the people which made the interworking 
tests.

regards,
Claudio Allocchio

---

From: Hiroshi Tamura <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 19:23:08 +0900 (JST)

This is a very good result, concerning RFC2304 for Draft standard.

I do not know if the report by Toyoda-san is enough as the formal one
for submission to IESG for Draft standard.
I think the report should be refined for it.
From now on, let's think of it.

And,
Are there any implementations that fully support RFC2304 ?
If it exists, more interworking tests are better for Draft standard.
If anyone knows, please let us know.

And, also, in order to solve reference issues in RFC2305, it is very good !
There is DSN(RFC1894) left, I think.

Toyoda-san,
I appreciate your and your colleagues' activities.

Regards,
--
Hiroshi Tamura, Ricoh Company, LTD.
E-mail: [email-masked]