Subject: Fax content negotiation

From: Graham Klyne <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 17:33:32 +0100

Folks,

The current working draft (soon to be submitted for publication) for 
Internet fax content negotiation contains the following note:

--
NOTE: A cache control indicator on recipient capabilities has been 
considered, but is not included in the this specification.  (Sometimes, a 
recipient may want to offer certain capabilities only under certain 
circumstances, and does not wish them to be remembered for future 
use;  e.g. not wanting to receive colour images for routine communications.)
--

Our question for this group is this:  is there a compelling immediate 
desire for a recipient to be able to indicate that certain capabilities 
offered apply ONLY to the current transaction, and should not be remembered 
for future use?

An extension to allow this would not, I think, be a major addition, but if 
not required it would represent an unnecessary complexity.  Is it useful 
enough to justify inclusion?

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

---

From: Dan Wing <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 13:29:32 -0700 (PDT)

While travelling with a laptop that receives Internet faxes via your
inbox, you might only have access to a black and white printer.  However,
while at your office, you might have access to a color printer.

If a sender cached the wrong information, you could receive a color fax
and be unable to print it (or perhaps even display it), or, if you are
located at your office, you might receive a lower fidelity (black and
white) fax when the sender (and you) may have preferred a color fax.

Likelyhood of the above scenario?  I dunno.

-Dan Wing

---

From: Hiroshi Tamura <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 14:29:50 +0900 (JST)

It depends. There is a Dan's example.

> enough to justify inclusion?

I cannot say yes or no.

How about only indicating there is a cache control indicator,
which might handle recipient capabilities?

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

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 18:37:13 -0700

At 01:29 PM 10/3/00 -0700, Dan Wing wrote:
>...

This is an entirely reasonable scenario.  It does not happen to me 
frequently, but it does happen.

The normal approach to this kind of issue is Time To Live (TTL).  It 
presumes that the user knows what value to set.

Still, it might be the right model.

d/

=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker  <[email-masked]>
Brandenburg Consulting  <www.brandenburg.com>
Tel: +1.408.246.8253,  Fax: +1.408.273.6464
675 Spruce Drive,  Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA