Skip to main content

Guidelines for Optional Services for Internet Fax Gateways
draft-ietf-fax-gateway-options-08

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2012-08-22
08 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Harald Alvestrand
2012-08-22
08 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Russ Housley
2005-02-24
08 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza
2005-02-21
08 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2005-02-21
08 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2005-02-21
08 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2005-02-18
08 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2005-02-17
2005-02-17
08 Amy Vezza State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Amy Vezza
2005-02-17
08 Michelle Cotton IANA Comments:
We understand this document to have NO IANA Actions.
2005-02-03
08 Harald Alvestrand [Ballot comment]
Reviewed by Spencer Dawkins, Gen-ART

His comment on version -08:
This revision seems to address just about every one of my (many) comments.
2005-02-03
08 Harald Alvestrand [Ballot Position Update] Position for Harald Alvestrand has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Harald Alvestrand
2005-02-02
08 Scott Hollenbeck Placed on agenda for telechat - 2005-02-17 by Scott Hollenbeck
2005-02-02
08 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Russ Housley
2005-02-02
08 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2005-02-02
08 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-fax-gateway-options-08.txt
2004-09-13
08 Scott Hollenbeck State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Scott Hollenbeck
2004-08-19
08 David Kessens [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for David Kessens by David Kessens
2004-08-19
08 Bert Wijnen [Ballot Position Update] Position for Bert Wijnen has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Bert Wijnen
2004-08-19
08 Bert Wijnen
[Ballot comment]
- citation in abstract
- non-standard IPR statement
- no IANA considerations section
- RFC2119 not referenced, while such language is used
- …
[Ballot comment]
- citation in abstract
- non-standard IPR statement
- no IANA considerations section
- RFC2119 not referenced, while such language is used
- etc

Similar comments have been made by others and there are 2 discusses
which cover my comments.
2004-08-19
08 Bert Wijnen [Ballot Position Update] New position, Undefined, has been recorded for Bert Wijnen by Bert Wijnen
2004-08-19
08 Allison Mankin
[Ballot comment]
This document has is pretty discursive.  It covers features, none of them surprising or particularly
hard to pull together. 

One bit of technology …
[Ballot comment]
This document has is pretty discursive.  It covers features, none of them surprising or particularly
hard to pull together. 

One bit of technology was promised in the intro and not actually specified, DTMF authorization.

HDD and FDD are used but not expanded.

There is an old-style IPR statement that indicates a claim was posted, but I can't see a claim
on the page.  In RFC 3667 times, we wouldn't be able to read a draft and know there was
a disclosure for it anyway, so I wouldn't be able to ask about this, but in any event, I do wonder
where the claim is (not to mention what in here could be claim-worthy, though that's moot).
2004-08-19
08 Allison Mankin
[Ballot comment]
This document has is pretty discursive.  It covers features, none of them surprising or particularly
hard to pull together. 

There is an old-style …
[Ballot comment]
This document has is pretty discursive.  It covers features, none of them surprising or particularly
hard to pull together. 

There is an old-style IPR statement that indicates a claim was posted, but I can't see a claim
on the page.  In RFC 3667 times, we wouldn't be able to read a draft and know there was
a disclosure for it anyway, so I wouldn't be able to ask about this, but in any event, I do wonder
where the claim is (not to mention what in here could be claim-worthy, though that's moot).
2004-08-19
08 Allison Mankin
[Ballot comment]
This document has is pretty discursive.  It covers features, none of them surprising or particularly
hard to pull together. 

There is an old-style …
[Ballot comment]
This document has is pretty discursive.  It covers features, none of them surprising or particularly
hard to pull together. 

There is an old-style IPR statement that indicates a claim was posted, but I can't see a claim
on the page.  In RFC 3667 times, we wouldn't be able to read a draft and know there was
a disclosure for it anyway, so I wouldn't be able to ask about this, but in any event, I do wonder
where the claim is (not to mention what in here could be claim-worthy, though that's moot).
2004-08-19
08 Allison Mankin [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Allison Mankin by Allison Mankin
2004-08-19
08 Harald Alvestrand [Ballot comment]
Reviewed by Spencer Dawkins, Gen-ART
2004-08-19
08 Harald Alvestrand
[Ballot discuss]
This document has too many unclear sentences to go forward. Review has been forwarded to AD.

One particular nit: Section 2.4 talks about …
[Ballot discuss]
This document has too many unclear sentences to go forward. Review has been forwarded to AD.

One particular nit: Section 2.4 talks about an "option selected by the user", where the "user" is the sender of the message that goes through the offramp.
No mechanism can be inferred for this selection; I think it should be "administrator".
2004-08-19
08 Harald Alvestrand [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Harald Alvestrand by Harald Alvestrand
2004-08-18
08 Margaret Cullen [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Margaret Wasserman by Margaret Wasserman
2004-08-18
08 Bill Fenner [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Bill Fenner by Bill Fenner
2004-08-17
08 Russ Housley
[Ballot comment]
This document could greatly benefit from a technical editor.  Several
  parts are quite difficult to understand.

  Please remove the reference from …
[Ballot comment]
This document could greatly benefit from a technical editor.  Several
  parts are quite difficult to understand.

  Please remove the reference from the Abstract and replace it with
  "RFC 2305."

  Section 2.2 is missing a title.

  Please delete the 'Revision history' before publishing as an RFC.
2004-08-17
08 Russ Housley
[Ballot discuss]
Section 3 says:
  >
  > In order to strengthen security, it is desirable to save log
  > information in the …
[Ballot discuss]
Section 3 says:
  >
  > In order to strengthen security, it is desirable to save log
  > information in the Internet FAX Gateway using a database system.
  >
  Given the use of RFC 2119 language elsewhere in the document, this
  should be reworded with RECOMMENDED or deleted altogether.I understand
  how an audit log improves security.  Please explain why a database
  system is needed.  Please add a paragraph in either section 3 or 4 to
  discuss this topic if the paragraph is not deleted. 

  Section 3.1 does not provide any useful information.  What is an
  implementor to do?

  Section 4, 1st paragraph: Are any of these encryption techniques or
  authentication mechanisms mandatory to implement when the options defined
  in this document are used?

  Section 4, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: Who are "they?"  Please replace
  with text that describes which parties MAY be authenticated.

  Section 4, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: This should probably be a separate
  paragraph.  Please provide pointers to the SMTP encryption techniques.  At
  a minimum, a "such as" phrase is needed.
2004-08-17
08 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Russ Housley by Russ Housley
2004-08-17
08 Ted Hardie [Ballot Position Update] Position for Ted Hardie has been changed to Abstain from Undefined by Ted Hardie
2004-08-17
08 Ted Hardie
[Ballot comment]
A pass by a native speaker would help.  There are several places where I
found the document pretty hard to parse; here's an …
[Ballot comment]
A pass by a native speaker would help.  There are several places where I
found the document pretty hard to parse; here's an example from 2.1:

  For example, an MTA (Mail Transfer Agent) is set so that it puts mail
  with a different destination address in one mailbox. When the MTA
  receives broadcast mail (mail of more than one destination address),
  some kinds of MTAs copy the mail in one mailbox. Then, the offramp
  gateway uses POP to receive the mail from the MTA. As a result, the
  offramp gateway receives duplicate mail from the MTA.

I think the paragraph before this and the overall topic (dropping duplicates)
is clear enough that this isn't a DISCUSS, but the language there is a barrier
rather than an enabler to communication.  Dropping the whole paragraph
might make this section more readable, but the problem is more general.


Are the date and time format in 2.6 standardized somewhere?  If so, a reference
would be useful.  I'm assuming that they are not, and that the local system
must indicate what the format is.  I also found it odd that the syslog protocol
was not mentioned as an "existing network communication means" for this.
None of the ones which are mentioned are in the references as either normative
or informative.

Why is section 3.1 present?  It seems to say "nonstandard user authentication
systems may exist".
2004-08-17
08 Ted Hardie [Ballot Position Update] New position, Undefined, has been recorded for Ted Hardie by Ted Hardie
2004-08-11
08 Scott Hollenbeck [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Scott Hollenbeck
2004-08-11
08 Scott Hollenbeck Ballot has been issued by Scott Hollenbeck
2004-08-11
08 Scott Hollenbeck Created "Approve" ballot
2004-08-11
08 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2004-08-11
08 (System) Last call text was added
2004-08-11
08 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2004-08-11
08 Scott Hollenbeck Placed on agenda for telechat - 2004-08-19 by Scott Hollenbeck
2004-08-10
08 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2004-08-10
07 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-fax-gateway-options-07.txt
2004-06-08
08 Scott Hollenbeck Note field has been cleared by Scott Hollenbeck
2004-06-08
08 Scott Hollenbeck References still need to be split.  Will put on agenda for IESG review after the document is updated.
2004-03-10
08 Scott Hollenbeck [Note]: 'Editing pass needed' added by Scott Hollenbeck
2004-03-10
08 Scott Hollenbeck Shepherding AD has been changed to Scott Hollenbeck from Ned Freed
2003-04-14
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-fax-gateway-options-06.txt
2002-12-02
08 Ned Freed State Changes to IESG Evaluation  :: Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation by Freed, Ned
2002-07-26
08 Stephen Coya References need to be split
2002-07-26
08 Stephen Coya A new comment added
by scoya
2002-07-05
08 Stephen Coya
State Changes to Reading List                                      from Wait …
State Changes to Reading List                                      from Wait for Writeup                                  by scoya
2002-07-05
08 Stephen Coya State changes to Wait for Writeup from Reading List by IETF Secretariat
2002-07-03
08 Stephen Coya responsible has been changed to Ned from IETF Secretary
2002-07-03
08 Stephen Coya
State Changes to Reading List                                      from Wait …
State Changes to Reading List                                      from Wait for Last Call to End                        by scoya
2002-06-14
08 Jacqueline Hargest
State Changes to Wait for Last Call to End                        from Last Call Issued    …
State Changes to Wait for Last Call to End                        from Last Call Issued                                  by jhargest
2002-06-10
08 Jacqueline Hargest Due date has been changed to 06/24/2002 from
by jhargest
2002-06-10
08 Jacqueline Hargest
State Changes to Last Call Issued                                  from Last Call …
State Changes to Last Call Issued                                  from Last Call Requested                              by jhargest
2002-06-10
08 Ned Freed responsible has been changed to IETF Secretary from Author
2002-06-10
08 Ned Freed
State Changes to Last Call Requested                              from New Version Needed (WG/Author)  …
State Changes to Last Call Requested                              from New Version Needed (WG/Author)                    by freed
2002-06-10
08 (System) Last call sent
2002-03-26
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-fax-gateway-options-05.txt
2002-03-20
08 Ned Freed Draft Added by Ned Freed
2001-09-19
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-fax-gateway-options-04.txt
2001-06-28
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-fax-gateway-options-03.txt
2001-05-22
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-fax-gateway-options-02.txt
2001-02-21
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-fax-gateway-options-01.txt
2000-11-02
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-fax-gateway-options-00.txt