Subject: Re: [dispatch] [sipcore] I-D Action: draft-jones-sip-forum-fax-problem-statement-00.txt

From: "Bernard Aboba" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 10:22:12 -0800

Since much of the document relates to T.38, I would agree that the target
audience is more ITU-T than IETF, since that is where the expertise is
likely to lie.   Given that, it's not clear to me how well that target
audience would be served by (or happy with) publication of an RFC. 

In terms of sections relevant to IETF protocols, the most obvious is Section
2.6 (SDP Negotiation).  Maybe one or more WGs might want to weigh in on
that. 

Cullen said:

" I'm trying to think about what we want to accomplish by publishing this
draft as an RFC. I was very happy to read the draft and think there is some
good stuff in it.  

The draft contains a mixture of things. Partially it is a liaison to IETF
from sipforum about what they are up to with a sipform work group. This is
great to get but I don't think there is much long term need to record that
in RFC form. The more important part to publish IMHO is documenting some
issues, problems, deficiencies and/or bugs in some IETF specifications that
are leading to lack of interoperability in deployments. That type of problem
statement would be great information to get written down in a concrete form
that allows the appropriate WG to go fix the problems. 

I do realize fax works by using protocols from multiple SDOs and that does
complicate things. I think it would be beneficial to document specific
problems found with IETF protocols. I'm less interested in the IETF
publishing problems with some other SDOs protocols.  You've caught me at a
particularly sensitive time having just spend 1/2 my time for the last
several months dealing with the IETF relationships with other SDOs. And if
anyone mentions royalty free fax algorithms my head might explode :-)

So what I am getting at is could we move this draft more towards something
that documents what is observed in real world deployments and discuss the
problems with the existing IETF protocols, then WG Last Call it in the
appropriate WG(s) (I'm assuming things like mmusic, fecframe, perhaps avt)
and publish it as informational? The goal of publishing it would be to
provide a problem statement for future work in theses WG.  

Does that make sense to people? Reasonable path forward? I'm open to other
ideas but whatever we do, I would want to understand why publishing whatever
document we published was going to help make things work better. And on that
note, I'd like to express many thanks to SIP Forum and all the people who
worked on this effort for helping get fax working better.

Cullen

PS - Paul, thanks for trying to make less work and Dean, as punishment for
your sins I'm nominating you for AD to the next Nomcom :-) "