From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Wed Jan 2 00:10:58 2002 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA21322 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 00:10:57 -0500 (EST) Received: by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g024R8U27210 for ietf-fax-bks; Tue, 1 Jan 2002 20:27:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from umbriel.eastgw.xerox.com (umbriel.xerox.com [208.140.33.26]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g024R5327205 for ; Tue, 1 Jan 2002 20:27:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from godzilla.ADOC.xerox.com (godzilla.ADOC.xerox.com [13.242.128.10]) by umbriel.eastgw.xerox.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA23807; Tue, 1 Jan 2002 23:26:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from mercury.adoc.xerox.com (mercury [13.242.100.20]) by godzilla.ADOC.xerox.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8/ADOC-HUB-1.7) with ESMTP id UAA05337; Tue, 1 Jan 2002 20:26:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by mercury.ADOC.xerox.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2654.89) id ; Tue, 1 Jan 2002 20:26:41 -0800 Message-ID: <51B8ABCE456FD111899900805F6FD6EE0D9123F1@mercury.ADOC.xerox.com> From: "McIntyre, Lloyd" To: "'Dan Wing'" , "McIntyre, Lloyd" , Mac , Hiroshi Tamura Cc: jraff@brooktrout.com, Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it, ietf-fax@imc.org, alan@mgcs.demon.co.uk Subject: RE: "Let the market decide" is a flawed concept Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 20:26:40 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2654.89) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Dan, I agree with your recommendation. Thanks. Lloyd > -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Wing [mailto:dwing@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, December 31, 2001 3:20 PM > To: McIntyre, Lloyd; Mac; Hiroshi Tamura > Cc: jraff@brooktrout.com; Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it; ietf-fax@imc.org; > alan@mgcs.demon.co.uk > Subject: RE: "Let the market decide" is a flawed concept > > > > Dan, > > Please consider that a sending application with > image/tiff-fx provisions > > (i.e. profiles beyond S and F) would also be a Full Mode > application. This > > implies that there would be provisons for attribute > discovery, diminishing > > your concerns for sending image/tiff-fx content to an > image/tiff only > > receiver. > > Yes, you're right. Good point. > > > The option of using image/tiff-fx for Profiles S and F makes > > provision for a transition process that would accommodate a > single TIFF > > MIME content type. > > Yes, it does -- which is a good thing. > > > > For text, perhaps just a reminder that image/tiff-fx should > not be used > in the absence of an attribute discovery process -- and that > only image/tiff > should be used? > > -d > From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Wed Jan 2 18:47:21 2002 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA13026 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 18:47:20 -0500 (EST) Received: by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g02NAJ326200 for ietf-fax-bks; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 15:10:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from adobe.com (smtp-relay-1.adobe.com [192.150.11.1]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g02NAI326194 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 15:10:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from inner-relay-1.corp.adobe.com ([153.32.1.51]) by adobe.com (1.0.0/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g02NBTS18041 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 15:11:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailsj-v1.corp.adobe.com (calsj-dev.corp.adobe.com [153.32.1.193]) by inner-relay-1.corp.adobe.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g02NAU521807 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 15:10:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from larrypad ([153.32.67.73]) by mailsj-v1.corp.adobe.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15 v1 Jul 11 2001 16:32:57) with ESMTP id GPC30Y00.M4L; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 15:10:10 -0800 Reply-To: From: "Larry Masinter" To: "'Dan Wing'" , "'Mac'" , "'McIntyre, Lloyd'" , "'Hiroshi Tamura'" Cc: , , , Subject: "Let the market decide" doesn't work for "draft standard" Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 15:10:09 -0800 Message-ID: <000c01c193e2$a0484f70$49432099@larrypad> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Using one MIME type or another is a feature. The Draft Standard should only have options that there are qualified multiple independent interoperable implementations. So if there's an option to use image/tiff-fx with profile S and F, there should be two independent writers and two independent readers that use this option, and the implementations need to meet the requirements of RFC 2026. If you are doing a "Proposed Standard" you can speculate on what you think people might want to implement at some time in the future, but to advanced to Draft Standard, there should actually be implementations. It isn't adequate to just imagine that someone could possibly build an implementation in the future, there should be people who are willing to take the time to actually create implementations and demonstrate their interoperability. From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Sun Jan 6 14:25:10 2002 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25687 for ; Sun, 6 Jan 2002 14:25:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g06IbhR01359 for ietf-fax-bks; Sun, 6 Jan 2002 10:37:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from elettra.trieste.it (SYNX02.elettra.trieste.it [140.105.2.2]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with SMTP id g06Ibf301355 for ; Sun, 6 Jan 2002 10:37:41 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 19:36:55 +0100 To: minutes@ietf.org cc: ietf-fax@imc.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="663-1103527590-1010345815=:541072537" From: Claudio Allocchio Subject: ietf fax WG final minutes (December 2001). Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. Send mail to mime@docserver.cac.washington.edu for more info. --663-1103527590-1010345815=:541072537 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hallo, here are the final minutes of the December 2001 ietf FAX WG meeting. Regards, Claudio Allocchio ietf fax WG co-chair --663-1103527590-1010345815=:541072537 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; name="a.tmp" Content-ID: Content-Description: Content-Transfer-Encoding: BASE64 DQpJRVRGLUZBWCBXRyBtZWV0aW5nIG5vdGVzIC0gUy4gTGFrZSBDaXR5LCBE ZWMgMTB0aCAyMDAyDQoNClRoZSBtZWV0aW5nIHN0YXJ0cyB3aXRoIHRoZSBD bGF1ZGlvIEFsbG9jY2hpbyAoQ0EpIHByZXNlbnRpbmcNCnRoZSBhcG9sb2dp ZXMgb2YgVGFtdXJhLXNhbiB0byB0aGUgV0cgZm9yIG5vdCBiZWluZyBhYmxl IHRvIA0KYmUgcHJlc2VudCBhdCB0aGUgbWVldGluZyB0aGlzIHRpbWUsIGFu ZCByZXBvcnRpbmcgdGhhdCBzaW1pbGFyIGFwb2xvZ2llcyANCndlcmUgcmVj ZWl2ZWQgZnJvbSBvdGhlciBXRyBtZW1iZXJzIHdoaWNoIGNvdWxkIG5vdCBh dHRlbmQgdGhpcyBtZWV0aW5nIA0KZHVlIHRvIHRyYXZlbCByZXN0cmljdGlv bnMgc3RpbGwgaW4gcGxhY2UgYXQgdGhlaXIgb3JnYW5pc2F0aW9ucyBhbmQg DQpjb21wYW5pZXMuIFR3byBvZiB0aGUgZG9jdW1lbnRzIGVkaXRvciBhcmUg YW1vbmcgdGhlIGFic2VudCBvbmVzLCANClRveW9kYS1zYW4gYW5kIE1hZWRh LXNhbiwgYnV0IHRoZWlyIGNvbW1lbnRzIHdlcmUgc2VudCBpbiBwcmlvciB0 byB0aGUgDQptZWV0aW5nIGFuZCB3aWxsIGJlIHJlcG9ydGVkIGxhdGVyIG9u Lg0KDQpDQSByZW1pbmRzIHRoZSBncm91cCB0aGF0IHRoZSBtZWV0aW5nIGlz IG9uIG11bHRpY2FzdCwgdGh1cyBhbHNvIGEgbGFyZ2UgDQpudW1iZXIgb2Yg YWJzZW50IHBlb3BsZSBjYW4gZm9sbG93IHRoZSBtZWV0aW5nLiBVbmZvcnR1 bmF0ZWx5IGl0IGxvb2tzIGxpa2UgDQp0aGUgbXVsdGljYXN0IGluIG9uZS13 YXkgb25seSwgdGh1cyB0aGUgb25seSB3YXkgdGhlIHJlbW90ZSBtZW1iZXJz IGNhbiANCmludGVyYWN0IHdpdGggdGhlIG1lZXRpbmcgaXMgc2VuZGluZyBp biBlLW1haWxzIHRvIHRoZSBsaXN0Lg0KDQpUaGUgcHJvcG9zZWQgYWdlbmRh IGluIG1vZGlmaWVkIChzZWUgYmVsb3cpIGluIG9yZGVyIHRvIGFsbG93IEpv aG4gDQpLbGVuc2luIHRvIGpvaW4gdGhlIG1lZXRpbmcsIHRodXMgcG9zdHBv bmluZyBpdGVtIDIgYWZ0ZXIgaXRlbSA3LiANCg0KLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uDQoNCjEuIEFnZW5k YSBiYXNoaW5nICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICANCg0K MyBUYXJnZXRlZCBmb3IgRHJhZnQgU3RhbmRhcmQNCjMuMSBTZXJ2aWNlDQot IGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtZmF4LXNlcnZpY2UtdjItMDUudHh0DQoNCkNBIHJlcG9y dHMgb24gYmVoYWxmIG9mIFRveW9kYS1zYW4uIA0KVGhlIGRyYWZ0IGhhcyBi ZWVuIG1vZGlmaWVkIGFjY29yZGluZyB0byB0aGUgc3VnZ2VzdGlvbnMgb2Yg dGhlIEFyZWFkIA0KRGlyZWN0b3IsIGluIHBhcnRpY3VsYXI6DQoNCi0gdGhl IGxvbmcgc3VtbWVheSBoYXMgYmVlbiBjaGFuZ2VkIGludG8gYSByZWFsIHNo b3J0IGFic3RyYWN0DQoNCi0gdGhlICJzY29wZSIgaXMgY2hhbmdlZCB0byAi aW50cm9kdWN0aW9uIiBhbmQgaXQgaW5jbHVkZXMgdGhlIHBhcmFncmFwaCAN CmFib3V0IGludGVsbGVjdHVhbCBwcm9wZXJ0eSByaWdodHMgYW5kIGtleXdv cmRzDQoNCi0gdGhlIGZvcm1hdGluZyBvZiB0aGUgYXBwZW5kaXggQiBpcyBm aXhlZA0KDQpUaGUgSS1EIGhhcyAyIG5vcm1pdGl2ZSByZWZlcmVuY2VzIA0K DQotIFJGQzIzMDEgdXBkYXRlIChGaWxlIEZvcm1hdCBmb3IgSW50ZXJuZXQg RmF4KQ0KDQotIFJGQzE4OTQgKEFuIEV4dGVuc2libGUgTWVzc2FnZSBGb3Jt YXQgZm9yIERlbGl2ZXJ5IE5vdGlmaWNhdGlvbnMgLSBEU04pDQoNCldpdGgg cmVnYXJkcyB0byBSRkMyMzAxIHVwZGF0ZSB0aGUgaXNjdXNzaW9uIGlzIGRl bGF5ZWQgYWZ0ZXIgcG9pbnQgMiBpcyANCmRlYWx0IHdpdGguIE9uIHRoZSBv dGhlciBoYW5kIE5lZCBGcmVlZCAoTkYpIGNvbmZpcm1zIHRoYXQgdGhlIHBy b2Nlc3Npbmcgb2YgDQpEU04gZG9jdW1lbnQgaXMgYmVpbmcgZmluYWxseSBk b25lLCBhbmQgaXQgaXMgZXhwZWN0ZWQgdG8gaGF2ZSBpdCANCmFwcHJvdmVk IGJ5IHRoZSBlbmQgb2YgSmFudWFyeSAyMDAyLiBORiBhbHNvIHN1Z2dlc3Rz IHRoZSBXRyBub3QgdG8gZGVsYXkgDQpkb2N1bWVudCBzdWJtaXNzaW9uIGFu ZCBwcm9jZXNpbmcgYmVjYXVzZSBvZiBvdGhlciBub3JtYXRpdmUgZG9jdW1l bnRzIA0Kd2FpdGluZyBmb3IgYXBwcm92YWwsIGJ1dCB0aGUgY29ycmVjdCBw cm9jZWR1cmUgc2hvdWxkIGJlIHRvIGFwcHJvdmUgDQp0aGVzZSBkb2N1bWVu dHMsIGdvIHRocm91Z2ggdGhlIElFU0cgYW5kIGxldCB0aGUgUkZDIGVkaXRv ciB0byBjb3JyZWN0bHkgDQptYW5hZ2UgdGhlIGRlcGVuZGVuY2llcyBxdWV1 ZSBmb3IgcHVibGljYXRpb24uIFRoZSB3b3JraW5nIGdyb3VwIGNvbmZpcm1z IA0KdGhhdCB0aGUgV0cgbGFzdCBjYWxsIGZvciB0aGlzIGRvY3VtZW50IGNh biBub3cgYmUgZG9uZS4gRnV0aGVyIA0KY29uZmlybWF0aW9uIGZyb20gdGhl IG1haWxpZyBsaXN0IGlzIGV4cGVjdGVkLg0KDQoNCjQgVGFyZ2V0ZWQgZm9y IFByb3Bvc2VkIFN0YW5hZGFyZCAgICAgICAgICAgICANCjQuMSBDb250ZW50 IE5lZ290aWF0aW9uDQotIGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtZmF4LWNvbnRlbnQtbmVnb3Rp YXRpb24tMDUudHh0DQoNClRoZSBkb2N1bWVudCBhbHJlYWR5IHdlbnQgdGhy b3VnaHQgdGhlIElFVEYgbGFzdCBjYWxsIHdpY2ggZW5kZWQgd2l0aG91dA0K ZnVydGhlciBjb21tZW50cyBvbiBOb3YgMTZ0aCAyMDAxLiBUaGUgV0cgdGh1 cyBjb25maXJtcyB0aGUgZG9jdW1lbnQgYXMgaXQNCmlzLCBhbmQgYXNrcyBm dXJ0aGVyIGNvbmZpcm1hdGlvbiBvbiB0aGUgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0cy4gV2Ug ZXhwZWN0IHRoZSBJRVNHDQp0byBwcm9jZXNzIGl0IGludG8gaXRzIHF1ZXVl LiBUaGUgZXhwZWN0ZWQgcHVibGljYXRpb24gZGF0ZSBpcyBieSBNYXJjaA0K MjAwMi4gDQoNCg0KNC4yIFRpbWVseSBEZWxpdmVyeSAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgIA0KLSBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLWZheC10aW1lbHktZGVsaXZl cnktMDUudHh0DQoNCkdyYWhhbSBLbGluZSAoR0spIGNvbmZpcm1zIHRoYXQg dGhlIGRvY3VtZW50IGlzIHJlYWR5LiBUaGUgV0cgbGFzdCBjYWxsIA0KZW5k ZWQgb24gRGVjIDZ0aCAyMDAxIHdpdGhvdXQgYW55IGZ1dGhlciBjb21tZW50 LiBUaGUgV0cgZXhwcmVzcyANCmNvbnNlbnN1cyB0byBwcm9ncmVzcyB0aGUg ZG9jdW1lbnQgdG8gdGhlIElFU0cgZm9yIElFVEYgbGFzdCBjYWxsLiBUaGlz IA0Kd2lsbCBiZSBjb25maXJtZWQgb24gdGhlIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdC4NCg0K NC4zIEZheCBHYXRld2F5DQotIGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtZmF4LWdhdGV3YXktcHJv dG9jb2wtMDYudHh0DQoNCkNBIHJlbWluZHMgdGhhdCB0aGUgSUVURiBsYXN0 IGNhbGwgd2FzIGlzc3VlZCBvbiBOb3YgMjZ0aCwgYW5kIGlzIA0KZXhwZWN0 ZWQgdG8gY2xvc2UgYXQgdGhlIGVuZCBvZiBKYW51YXJ5IDIwMDIuIElmIHRo ZXJlIHdpbGwgYmUgbm8gDQpjb21tZW50cywgdGhlIHRoZSBkb2N1bWVudHMg d2lsbCBlbnRlciB0aGUgSUVTRyBxdWV1ZS4NCg0KNSBUYXJnZXRlZCBmb3Ig SW5mb3JtYXRpb25hbA0KNS4xIEZheCBHYXRld2F5ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICANCi0gZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1mYXgtZ2F0ZXdheS1vcHRpb25z LTA0LnR4dA0KDQpBbHNvIGZvciB0aGlzIGRvY3VtZW50IHRoZSBJRVRGIGxh c3QgY2FsbCB3YXMgaXNzdWVkIG9uIE5vdiAyNnRoIDIwMDEsIA0KYW5kIGl0 IHdpbGwgZW5kIGluIGxhdGUgSmFudWFyeSAyMDAyLiBDQSByZW1pbmRzIHRo YXQgdGhlIFdHIGFza2VkIGZvciANCnRoZSBJRVRGIGxhc3QgY2FsbCBldmVu IGlmIG5vdCBmb3JtYWxseSBuZWVkZWQgYXMgdGhlIHRvcGljIG9mIEZBWCAN CkdhdGV3YXlzIGhhcyBhIGxhcmdlIG51bWJlciBvZiBpbXBsaWNhdGlvbiBh bmQgaW1wYWN0IG9uIGV4aXN0aW5nIA0KaW1wbGVtZW50YXRpb25zLCBhbmQg dGh1cyB0aGUgZG9jdW1lbnQgZGVzY3JpYmluZyB0aGUgc2VydmljZSBzaG91 bGQgaGF2ZSANCnRoZSBsYXJnZXN0IGNvbnNlbnN1cyBhcyBwb3NzaWJsZS4N Cg0KNiBPbi1Hb2luZyBJbnRlcm5ldC1EcmFmdHMNCjYuMSBGRlBJTSAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgDQotIGRyYWZ0LWlldGYt ZmF4LWZmcGltLTAxLnR4dA0KDQpEYXZlIENyb2NrZXIgKERDKSBhcG9sb2dp ZXMgZm9yIHRoZSBkZWxheSBpbiBlZGluZyB0aGUgZmluYWwgdmVyc2lvbiBv ZiANCnRoZSBkb2N1bWVudCBhbmQgcHJvbWlzZXMgdGhlIGlzc3VlIHRoZSBm aW5hbCB2ZXJzaW9uIGJ5IFgtbWFzIDIwMDEuIFRoZSANCldHIHRoYW5rcyBm b3IgdGhlIFgtbWFzIGdpZnQuLi4gQXMgdGhlIGRvY3VtZW50IGlzIG91dCwg dGhlIFdHIHdpbGwgDQpwcm9jZWVkIHdpdGggV0cgbGFzdCBjYWxsICh0byBi ZSBjb25maXJtZWQgb24gdGhlIGxpc3QpLg0KDQo2LjIgRVNNVFAtQ09OTkVH ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICANCi0gZHJhZnQtaWV0 Zi1mYXgtZXNtdHAtY29ubmVnLTAxLnR4dA0KDQpDYSByZWZlcnMgYWdhaW4g b24gYmVoYWxmIHRoIFRveW9kYS1zYW4uIFRlIEktRCB3YXMgcmV2aXNlZCBh Y2NvcmRpbmcgdG8gDQp0aGUgY29tbWVudHMgcmV2ZWl2ZWQgYnkgRGFuIFdp bmcsIGluIHBhcnRpY3VsYXI6DQoNCi0gaGUgdGVybSAidGFyZ2V0IiBhbmQg InNlcnZlciIgaXMgdW5pZmllZCB0byAidGFyZ2V0Ig0KDQotIHRoZSBiYWNr c2xhc2ggaXMgbm90IGFsbG93ZWQgaW4gQ09OTkVHIEVTTVRQIGxpbmVzIA0K DQotIENPTk5FQ0ctY2FwYWJsZSBjbGllbnRzIE1VU1QgYmUgYWJsZSB0byBw cm9jZXNzIHN1Y2Nlc3NmdWxseSBDT05ORUcgDQpsaW5lcyBhcyBsb25nIGFz IDUxMiBjaGFyYWN0ZXJzIChSRkMyODIxKS4NCg0KLSB0aGUgQUJORiBzeW50 YXggaGFzIGJlZW4gYWRkZWQNCg0KLSBhIHNhbXBsZSBvZiBFSEFOQ0hFRFNU QVRVU0NPREUgaXMgYWRkZWQNCg0KVGh1cyB0aGUgbWlsZXN0b25lIGRhdGUg Zm9yIHN1Ym1pc3Npb24gKHdhcyBOb3ZlbWJlciAyMDAxKSBoYXMgYmVlbg0K Y29uZmlybWVkLCBhbmQgdGhlIG5ldyBtaWxlc3RvbmUgZm9yIHRoZSBXRyBs YXN0IGNhbGwgaXMgc2V0IHRvIEphbnVhcnkNCjIwMDEuIFRoZSBXRyBhZ3Jl ZXMgb24gdGhlIGNoYW5nZXMsIHdoaWNoIG5lZWQgdG8gYmUgY29uZmlybWVk IG9uIHRoZSANCm1haWxpbmcgbGlzdC4NCg0KDQo2LjMgVGVybWluYWwgbW9k ZSBpc3N1ZSAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIA0KLSBkcmFmdC1t YWVkYS1mYXh3Zy10ZXJtaW5hbC1tb2RlLWdvYWxzLTAxLnR4dA0KLSBkcmFm dC1tYWVkYS1mYXh3Zy10ZXJtaW5hbC1tb2RlLXByb3RvY29sLTAxLnR4dA0K LSBkcmFmdC1tYWVkYS1mYXh3Zy1mYXgtcHJvY2Vzc2luZy1zdGF0dXMtMDEu dHh0DQoNCk1hZWRhLXNhbiBhZ2FpbiBjb3VsZCBub3QgYmUgcHJlc2VudCBh dCB0aGUgbWVldGluZywgYnV0IGhlIHNlbnQgYSANCm1lc3NhZ2UgdG8gdGhl IG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdCBhcG9sb2dpc2luZyBmb3Igbm8gd29yayBhdCBhbGwg YW5kIG5vIA0KY29tbWVudHMgYXQgYWxsIG9uIHRoZSBhYm92ZSBkb2N1bWVu dHMuIENBIHJlbWluZHMgdGhhdCBhdCB0aGUgTG9uZG9uIA0KbWVldGluZyB0 aGUgV0cgYWdyZWVkIHRoYXQ6DQoNCi0gaXMgd2FzIG5vdCB0aGUgY2FzZSB0 byBkZWNpZGUgdGhlcmUgaWYgdG8gZHJvcCB0aGUgZG9jdW1lbnRzIGZyb20g dGhlIA0KV0cgY2hhcnRlciwgYW5kIHRvIHdhaXQgdW50aWwgdGhlIG5leHQg bWVldGluZyB0byBzZWUgaWYgdGhlcmUgd2VyZSANCmZ1cnRoZXIgcHJvZ3Jl c3MgYW5kIGNvbW1lbnRzIG9uIHRoZW0NCg0KLSB0byBsZXQgdGhlIGVkaXRv ciBoYXZlIGEgY2hhbmNlIHRvIGJlIHByZXNlbnQgYXQgdGhlIG1lZXRpbmcg dG8gZGlzY3VzcyANCnRoaXMgaXNzdWUgYWdhaW4uDQoNCkhvd2V2ZXIsIG5v dCBoYWluZyByZWNlaXZlZCBhbnkgY29tbWVudCBhbmQgbm90IGhhdmluZyBz ZWVuIGFueSBhY3Rpdml0eSANCm9uIHRoZW0gc2luZSBhIGxvbmcgdGltZSwg Q0Egc3VnZ2VzdHMgdGhlIFdHIHRvIGRyb3AgdGhlc2UgZG9jdW1lbnRzIGZy b20gDQp0aGUgY3VycmVudCBjaGFydGVyLiBBIGRpc2N1c3Npb24gc3RhcnRz LCB3aGVyZSBEQyBzdWdnZXN0cyB0aGF0IGl0IA0KZG9lcyBub3Qgc2VlbSB0 aGEgY2FzZSB0byBrZWVwIGRvY3VtZW50cyBpbiB0aGUgYm9pbGVycGxhdGUg c28gbG9uZyANCndpdGhvdXQgYW55IGRpc2N1c3Npb24gYW5kIHByb2dyZXNz IG9uIHRoZW0sIGFuZCBORiBhbmQgSksgcmVtaW5kIHRoYXQgaWYgDQppbnRl cmVzdCBhcmlzZXMgYWdhaW4gZnJvbSB0aGUgV0cgYW5kIHRoZSBtYWlsaW5n IGxpc3QsIHRoZSBJLUQgY2FuIGJlIA0KdGFrZSBvbiBib2FyZCBhZ2Fpbiwg Q0EgYXNrcyB0aGUgcHJlc2VudHMgaWYgdGhlcmUgaXMgY29uc2Vuc3VzIHRv IGRyb3AgDQp0aGVzZSBkb2N1bWVudHMuIE5vIG9iamVjdGlvbnMgdG8gdGhl IHByb3Bvc2FsIGFyZSBtYWRlLiBUaGUgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0IA0Kd2lsbCBi ZSBhc2tlZCB0byBjb25maXJtIHRoZSBkZWNpc2lvbiB0byBkcm9wIHRoZXNl IGRvY3VtZW50cywgYXQgbGVhc3QgDQpmb3IgdGhlIHRpbWUgYmVpbmcuDQoN CjYuNCBUSUZGLUZYIGV4dGVuc2lvbiBpc3N1ZSAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgIA0KLSBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLWZheC10aWZmLWZ4LWV4dGVuc2lvbi0x LTAxLnR4dA0KLSBkYXJmdC1tY2ludHlyZS1mZWF0dXJlLXNjaGVtYS1leHRl bnNpb24xLTAwLnR4dA0KDQpMbG95ZCBNY0ludHlyZSAoTE0pIHZlcnkgYnJp ZWZseSBpbmZvcm1zIHRoZSBXRyB0aGF0IGluIGhpcyBvcGluaW9uIGl0IA0K bWFrZXMgbm8gc2Vuc2UgdG8gd29yayBvbiB0aGVzZSBkb2N1bWVudHMgbm93 LCBhdCBsZWFzdCB1bnRpbCB0aGUgVElGRi1GWCANCmlzc3VlIGlzIHNldCBh bmQgdGhlcmUgYXJlIHRoZSByZWxldmFudCBuZXcgZG9jdW1lbnRzIGluIGEg c3RhYmxlIHN0YXR1cy4NCkFzIHN1Y2ggaGUgcHJvcG9zZXMgbm90IHRpIGRp c2N1c3MgdGhlbSBub3csIGFuZCB3YWl0IHVudGlsIHRoZSBpc3N1ZSBpcyAN CnNvbHZlZC4gVGhlIFdHIGV4cHJlc3MgY29uc2Vuc3VzIG9uIHRoaXMgcHJv cG9zYWwsIHdoaWNoIHNob3VsZCBiZSANCmNvbmZpcm1lZCBvbiB0aGUgbWFp bGluZyBsaXN0LiBDQSBhbHNvIHJlbWluZHMgdGhhIGEgbnVtYmVyIG9mIGNv bW1lbnRzIA0Kd2VyZSByZWNlaXZlZCBmcm9tIHRoZSBXRyBhbmQgaW1wbGVt ZW50b3JzIG9uIHRoZSBjaGFuY2VzIHRoYXQgc29tZSBvZiANCnRoZSBvcHRp b25zIHdpbGwgZXZlciBiZSBpbXBsZW1lbnRlZCBhbmQgYXNrcyB0aGUgZWRp dG9yIHRvIHBheSANCmF0dGVudGlvbnMgdG8gdGhlc2UgY29tbWVudHMsIGlu IG9yZGVyIG5vdCB0byBpbnRyb2R1Y2UgZmVhdHVyZXMgd2hpY2ggDQpoYXMg dmVyeSBsaXR0bGUgY2hhbmdlIHRvIGV2ZXIgZXhpc3QgaW4gcmVhbGl0eS4g VGhlIFdHIGpvaW5zIGluIHRoZSANCnN1Z2dlc3Rpb25zIGFuIExNIGFncmVl cyBvbiBpdC4NCg0KDQo3IE1pc2NlbGxhbmVvdXMgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgDQotIGRyYWZ0LWFsbG9jY2hpby1nc3RuLTAxLnR4 dA0KDQpDQSBicmllbGZseSBzdW1tYXJpemVzIHRoZSBpZGVhIGJlaGluZCB0 aGlzIEktRC4gRHVyaW5nIGEgZGlzY3Vzc2lvbiBhZnRlciANCnRoZSBMb25k b24gbWVldGluZyB3aXRoIHRoZSBBRHMsIGl0IHdhcyByZWFsaXNlZCB0aGF0 IHRoZSBzcGVjaWZpYXRpb25zIA0Kb24gaG93IHRvIHdyaXRlIGEgImRpYWwt c3RyaW5nIiAod2hpY2ggaW5jbHVkZXMgaW4gaXRzZWxmIGFsc28gYW55IEUu MTY0IA0KYW5kIGdlbmVyaWMgdGVsZXBob25lIG51bWJlcikgaW50byBhIHRl eHQgc3RyaW5nIHdhcyBleGlzdGluZywgYnV0IGl0IHdhcyANCnNwcmVhZCBh bGwgb3ZlciBhIG51bWJlciBvZiBkaWZmZXJlbnQgUkZDcyBhbG9uZyB0aGUg U3RhbmRhcmQgVHJhY2suIFRoaXMgDQp3YXMgY3JlYXRpbmcgcHJvYmxlbXMg Zm9yIHRoZSBuZXcgZG9jdW1lbnRzIGVkaXRvcnMsIGFuZCB3YXMgbWFraW5n IHRoZSANCnRhc2sgb2YgdGhlIElFU0cgcXVpdGUgaGFyZCBpbiB0cnlpbmcg dG8ga2VlcCB0aGUgbmV3IHNwZWNpZmljYXRpb24gDQpjb2hlcmVudCB3aXRo IGV4aXN0aW5nIHN0YW5kYXJkcy4gSXQgd2FzIGFsc28gcmVhbGl6ZWQgdGhh dCBub2JvZHkgZXZlciANCmRpZCB0aGUgYXR0ZW1wdCB0byBjaGVjayB0aGF0 IGFsbCBleGlzdGluZyBzcGVjaWZpY2F0aW9uIHdoZXJlIGFic29sdXRlbHkg DQpjb2hlcmVudCwgYW5kIG5vYm9keSBldmVyIHdyb3RlIGEgc2luZ2xlLCBz aG9ydCBhbmQgdW5pcXVlIHJlZmVyZW5jZSANCmRvY3VtZW50IGNvbGxlY3Rp bmcgdGhlIHBpZWNlcyBhdmFpbGFibGUgYXJvdW5kIHRoZSBvdGhlciBkb2N1 bWVudHMuIENBIA0KdGh1cyBjb2xsZWN0ZWQgdGhlIGV4aXN0aW5nIGluZm9y bWF0aW9uLCBhbmQgc2VhcmNoZWQgdGhlIGV4aXN0aW5nIA0Kc3BlY2lmaWNh dGlvbiB0byBjaGVjayBmb3IgY29oZXJlbmNlLiBUaGUgcmVzdWx0aW5nIGRv Y3VtZW50IHdhcyANCnB1Ymxpc2hlZCBhbmQgZGlzY3Vzc2VkIGludG8gaWV0 Zi1mYXgsIHZwaW0sIGVudW0gYW5kIGFwcHMtZGlzY3Vzc2lvbiANCm1haWxp bmcgbGlzdHMsIHJlY2VpdmluZyBhIG51bWJlciBvZiBpbW1lZGlhdGUgY29t bWVudHMsIHN1Z2dlc3Rpb25zIGZvciANCmNsYXJpZmljYXRpb24gYW5kIGFs c28gYSBzeW50YXggZXJyb3IgY29ycmVjdGlvbi4gUmV2aXNpb24gLTAxIG9m IGl0IGlzIA0KYXZhaWxhYmxlIHNpbmNlIHNvbWUgdGltZS4gQ0EgdXJnZXMg dGhlIFdHIHRvIGZ1cnRoZXIgY29tbWVudHMgb24gaXQsIA0KYmVmb3JlIHRo ZSBkb2N1bWVudHMgaXMgcHJvZ2Vzc2VkLiBMYXJyeSBNYXNpbnRlciAoTEwp IGFza3MgaWYgdGhlIA0KaW50ZW50aW9uIGlzIHRvIHByb2dyZXNzIGl0IHRv IEJDUCBvciBTdGFuZGFyZCB0cmFjaywgYW5kIE5GIGFuc3dlcnMgdGhhdCAN CnRoZSBpbnRlbnRpb24gaXMgdG8gYmUgaW4gU3RhbmRhcmRzIFRyYWNrLCBh dCBmaXJzdCBhcyBQcm9wb3NlZCAoZXZlbiBpZiBhIA0KbGFyZ2UgcGFydCBv ZiBpdCBjb21lcyBmcm9tIERyYWZ0IFN0YW5kYXJkIGRvY3MpLCBhbmQgdGhl IG1vdmluZyBpdCANCmZvcndhcmQuIENBIHN1Z2dlc3QgdGhlIGVuZCBvZiBK YW51YXJ5IDIwMDIgYXMgYSBwb3NzaWJsZSBkYXRlIGZvciB0aGUgDQpJRVRG IGxhc3QgY2FsbCBmb3IgaXQuIEl0IGlzIGFsc28gbm90ZWQgdGhhdCB0aGUg QUJORiBzeW50YXggZXJyb3IgDQpwcmVzZW50IGluIHRocyBJLUQgaXMgZXhp c3RpbmcgaW4gdGhlIHB1Ymxpc2hlZCB2ZXJzaW9uIG9mIFJGQzI4NDYuIFRo ZSANCmVkaXRvciBub3RlZCBpdCBkb3duIGZvIGNvcnJlY3Rpb24gd2hlbiBS RkMyODQ2IHdpbGwgYmUgc3VibWl0dGVkIGZvciANCnJldmlzaW9uLg0KDQot IElUVS1UICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgDQoNCkNBIHJlcG9ydHMgb24gYmVoYWxmIG9mIFRhbXVyYS1zYW4u IFNpbmNlIHRoZSBMb25kb24gbWVldGluZywgbm8gSVRVLVQNCm1lZXRpbmcg d2FzIGhlbGQsIHRodXMgdGhlIHN0YXR1cyBpbiBJVFUtVCBpdHNlbGYgZGlk IG5vdCBjaGFuZ2UuIFRoZSBsYXN0DQpsZXR0ZXIgZnJvbSBTRzE2IG1lZXRp bmcgaW4gSnVuZSAyMDAxIGluY2x1ZGVkIHRoZWlyIGNvbmNlcm5zIGZvciB0 aGUNCnN0YXR1cyBvZiBSRkMyMzAxIChUSUZGLUZYKSB1cGRhdGUsIHRoZSBu ZWVkIGZvciByZWZlcmVuY2UgdG8gdGhlDQpJbXBsZW1lbnRlcnMgR3VpZGUg aW4gVC4zNyBhbmQgdGhlIGlzc3VlIGFib3V0IHRoZSBUZXJtaW5hbCBNb2Rl DQpkb2N1bWVudHMuIA0KDQpDdXJyZW50bHkgdGhlIElUVS1UIFNHMTYgYWxz byBleHByZXNzZWQgaW5mb3JtYWxseSBjb25jZXJucyBhYm91dCB0aGUgDQpl LW1haWwgdGhleSByZWNldmllZCBmcm9tIFNjb2ZmIEZvc2hlZSAoU0YpIGZy b20gQWRvYmUsIHJhaXNpbmcgSVBSIA0KaXNzdWVzIG9uIHRoZSB1c2Ugb2Yg QWRvYmUgbGljZW5zZSBmb3IgVElGRiB3aXRoaW4gVElGRi1GWCBhbmQgdGh1 cyBJVFUtVCANCmRvY3VtZW50cy4gVGFtdXJhLXNhbiBhbHJlYWR5IHJlcG9y dGVkIGJhY2sgdG8gSVRVLVQgaW5mb3JtYWxseSB0aGF0IHRoZSANCldHIHRo ZSBJRVNHIGFuZCBJQUIgYXJlIHdvcmtpbmcgb24gdGhpcyBpc3N1ZSBhbmQg dGhleSB3aWxsIHJlY2VpdmUgb3UgDQpmb3JtYWwgYW5zd2VyIGluIHRoZSBu ZXh0IGxldHRlciBkdWUgYnkgdGhlIEZlYnJ1YXJ5IDIwMDIgU0cxNiBtZWV0 aW5nLg0KTW9yZSBvdmVyIGluIHRoaXMgbGV0dGVyICh3aGljaCB3aWxsIGJl IHByZXBhcmVkIGJ5IHRoZSBlbmQgb2YgSmFudWFyeSANCjIwMDIpIHdlIHdp bGwgaW5mb3JtIFNHMTYgdGhhdCB0aGUgSW1wbGVtZW50ZXJzIGd1aWRlIGlz IGRvbmUgYW5kIGlzIA0KY3VycmVudGx5IGluIHRoZSBSRkMgZWRpdG9yIHF1 ZXVlLCBhbmQgdGhlIHRoZSBXRyAoaWYgY29uZmlybWVkIG9uIHRoZSANCm1h aWxpbmcgbGlzdCkgd2lsbCBkcm9wIHRoZSBUZXJtaW5hbCBNb2RlIGRvY3Vt ZW50cywgZHVlIHRvIHRoZSBsYWNrIG9mIA0KcHJvZ3Jlc3MgYW5kIGRpc2N1 c3Npb24gb24gdGhlbS4gSm9obiBLbGVuc2luIChKSykgY29uZmlybXMgdGhh dCB0aGUgSUFCIA0KYW5kIElFU0cgaGF2ZSByZWFjaGVkIGEgcG9zaXRpb24g b24gdGhlIGlzc3VlIChzZWUgbmV0IHBhcmFncmFwaCBmb3IgDQpkZXRhaWxz KS4NCg0KDQoyLiBTdGF0dXMgb2YgRHJhZnQgU3RhbmRhcmQgY29uc2lkZXJh dGlvbg0KMi4xIFRJRkYtRlggICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgIA0KLSBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLWZheC10aWZmLWZ4LTExLnR4dA0K LSBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLWZheC10aWZmLXJlZ2Jpcy0wMy50eHQNCi0gZHJhZnQt aWV0Zi1mYXgtdGlmZi1meC1yZWctMDEudHh0DQoNCkNBIGludHJvZHVjZXMg YnJpZWZseSB0aGUgdG9waWMgd2l0aCBhIHN1bW1hcnkgb2YgdGhlIHNpdHVh dGlvbi4gQSANCm51bWJlciBvZiBlLW1haWwgaGFzIGJlZW4gZXhjaGFuZ2Vk IGJldHdlZW4gdGhlIFdHLCB0aGUgDQpXRy1jaGFpcnMsIHRoZSBJRVNHIGFu ZCBJQUIgYW5kIFNGIGZyb20gQWRvYmUgYWJvdXQgdGhlIHRvcGljLiBBZnRl ciBhIA0KbG9uZyBkaXN1Y3NzaW9uIGFtb25nIHRoZSBJQUIsIHRoZSBJRVNH IGFuZCB0aGUgV0ctY2hhaXJzIHdlIHJlYWNoZWQgdGhlIA0KY29uc2Vuc3Vz IHRoYXQgdGhlIGlzc3VlcyBhbmQgY2xhaW1zIGV4cHJlc3NlZCBmcm9tIEFk b2JlIHNlZW1zIGF0IGxlYXN0IA0KaW5jb2hlcmVudCB3aXRoIHRoZSByZWNv cmRzIG9mIHRoZSBJRVRGIG1lZXRpbmdzIGFuZCB0aGUgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0 cyBvZiANCnRoZSBXRyBhbmQgb2YgdGhlIElFVEYuIEZvciB0aGVzZSByZWFz b25zIHRoZSBJQUIgYW5kIElFU0cgYmVsaWV2ZXMgdGhhdCANCnRoZSBXRyBz aG91bGQgY29udGludWUgcHJvZ3Jlc3NpbmcgdGhlIGRvY3VtZW50cywgYXMg ZGVjaWRlZCBvbiB0aGUgDQptYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QgYWZ0ZXIgdGhlIExvbmRv biBtZWV0aW5nLCBhbmQgc3VibWl0IHRoZW0gZm9yIGFwcHJvcHJpYXRlIA0K Y29uc2lkZXJhdGlvbiB0byB0aGUgSUVTRyBhcyBzb29uIGFzIHRoZXkgYXBw ZWFyIHRvIGJlIHJlYWR5LiBKSyBhbmQgTkYgDQpjb25maXJtZWQgdGhpcyBw b3NpdGlvbiBhbmQgaW52aXRlIHRoZSBXRyB0byBwcm9jZWVkIG9uIGl0cyBw bGFucy4NCg0KQ0EgdGhhbmtzIHRoZSBJQUIgYW5kIElFU0cgZm9yIHRoZWly IGNsZWFyIHN1Z2dlc3Rpb24sIGFuZCByZW1pbmRzIA0KYnJpZWZseSB0aGF0 IHRoZSBXRyBhdCB0aGUgTG9uZG9uIG1lZXRpbmcgZXhwcmVzc2VkIHRoZSBv cGluaW9uIHRvIA0Kc2VwYXJhdGUgaW4gMiBkb2N1bWVudHMgdGhlIFRJRkYg YW5kIFRJRkYtRlggc3BlY2lmaWNhdGlvbnMsIGJ1dCB0aGlzIHdhcyANCmNo YW5nZWQgbGF0ZWx5IG9uIHRoZSBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QgYXMgd2hhdCBoYXMg YmVlbiByZWNvcmRlZCBhcyAib3B0aW9uIA0KNSIsIGkuZS46DQoNCiBTaW5n bGUgVElGRi1GWCBzcGVjaWZpY2F0aW9uIHdpdGggMiBDb250ZW50LXR5cGUN Cg0KIExsb3lkIHRoZW4gZXhwb3NlcyB0aGUgY3VycmVudCBzdGF0dXMgb2Yg dGhlIGFib3ZlIGRvY3VtZW50cywgYW5kIHRoZQ0KcHJvZ3Jlc3Npb24gcGxh biBmb3IgIm9wdGlvbiA1IiAoU2VlIGFsc28gaGlzIHNsaWRlcykNCg0KVGhl cmUgd2lsbCBiZSBhIHNpbmdsZSBUSUZGLUZYIHNwZWNpZmljYXRpb24sIHdo aWNoIHdpbGwgYmUgcHJvZ3Jlc3NlZC4gQSANCmRlY2lzaW9uIG5lZWRzIHRv IGJlIG1hZGUgb24gaG93IGV4YWN0bHkgdG8gcmVhY2ggdGhlIG5lZWRlZCBE cmFmdCANClN0YW5kYXJkIGxldmVsLiBTZWUgbGF0ZXIgaW4gdGhlc2Ugbm90 ZXMgZm9yIGEgZGV0YWlsZWQgZGlzY3Vzc2lvbi4gDQoNClRoZXJlIHdpbGwg YmUgMiBkaWZmZXJlbnQgTUlNRSBjb250ZW50LXR5cGVzOg0KICAgIA0KICBp bWFnZS90aWZmIGZvciBwcm9maWxlcyBTIGFuZCBGLCB3aGljaCBpcyBjb21w YXRpYmxlIHdpdGggYWxsIGN1cnJlbnQNCiAgICAgICAgICAgICB2aWV3ZXJz DQogIA0KICBpbWFnZS90aWZmLWZ4IGZvciBwcm9maWxlcyBKLCBDLCBMLCBN LCBhbmQgYW55IGZ1dHVyZSBvbmUuIEl0IG1pZ2h0IGFsc28NCiAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICBhbGxvdyBwcm9maWxlcyBTIGFuZCBGLg0KDQpUaGVyZSB3aWxs IGJlIDIgY29ycmVzcG9uZGluZyBmaWxlIGV4dGVuc2lvbnMgKGV2ZW4gaWYg dGhpcyBpcyBub3QgYSANCiJzdHJpY3RseSBzdGFuZGFyZCIgZGVjaXNpb24s IHRoZSBXRyBiZWxpZXZlcyB0aGF0IGl0IGlzIGdvb2QgcHJhY3RpY2UgdG8g DQpkZWZpbmU6DQoNCiAgLnRpZiAoLnRpZmYpIGZvciBwcm9maWxlcyBTIGFu ZCBGDQogIC50ZnggZm9yIGFsbCB0aGUgb3RoZXIgcHJvZmlsZXMNCg0KQXMg YSBjb25zZXF1ZW5jZSB0aGVyZSBpcyBhIG5lZWQgZm9yIDMgZG9jdW1lbnRz Og0KDQogLSBhIHJldmlzZWQgZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1mYXgtdGlmZi1yZWdiaXMg d2hpY2ggdXBkYXRlcyBpbWFnZS90aWZmIGNvbnRlbnQgdHlwZQ0KDQogLSBh IG5ldyByZWdpc3RyYXRpb24gZHJhZnQgcmVnaXN0ZXJpbmcgaW1hZ2UvdGlm Zi1meCBNSU1FIHN1Yi10eXBlIGFuZA0KICAgdGhlIGNvcnJlc3BvbmRpbmcg ZmlsZSBleHRlbnNpb24gKC50ZngpDQoNCiAtIGEgcmV2aXNlZCBkcmFmdC1p ZXRmLWZheC10aWZmLWZ4IHdoaWNoIGRlZmluZXMgd2hpY2ggTUlNRSB0eXBl IHRvIHVzZSwgDQogICBkZXBlbmRpbmcgb24gdGhlIHVzZWQgcHJvZmlsZXMs IGFuZCB1cGRhdGVzIHRoZSByZXN0IG9mIHRoZSAgDQogICBzcGVjaWZpY2F0 aW9uIGFzIGFwcHJvcHJpYXRlLg0KDQpJbiBvcmRlciB0byB0ZXN0IGltcGxl bWVudGF0aW9ucyBhbmQgaW50ZXJvcGVyYWJpbGl0eSwgdGhlIGZvbGxvd2lu ZyANCiJUZXN0IERlbGl2ZXJhYmxlcyIgYXJlIHByb3Bvc2VkIHRvIHRoZSBX RzoNCg0KLSBBIG5ldyBpbWFnZS10aWZmLWZ4IGFuZCAudGZ4IHZhbGlkYXRp b24gdGVzdCBib3RoIGZvciBNSU1FIHRyYW5zcG9ydCBhbmQgDQogIHZpZXdl cnMNCg0KLSBBIG5ldyB2aWV3ZXIgdmFsaWRhdGlvbiBmb3IgcHJvZmlsZSBT IGFuZCBGIGFuZCBpbWFnZS90aWZmDQoNClRoZSBwcm9wb3NlZCB0aW1lbWVs aW5lcyBhcmU6DQoNCkR1cmluZyB0aGlzIERlY2VtYmVyIDIwMDEgbWVldGlu ZzoNCiANCi0gbWFrZSBhdmFpbGFibGUgdGhlIDMgbmV3IGRyYWZ0cyAoYWN0 aW9uIGRvbmUpDQotIHJlYWNoIGNvbnNlbnN1cyBvbiB0aGUgY29udGVudCBv ZiB0aGUgZHJhZnRzDQotIHJlYWNoIGNvbnNlbnN1cyBvbiB0aGUgZHJhZnRz IHByb2dyZXNzaW9ucyBwYXRocw0KLSBhZ3JlZSBvbiB0aGUgd2hvbGUgT3B0 aW9uIDUgcGxhbi4NCg0KQmVmb3JlIERlY2VtYmVyIDMxc3QgMjAwMToNCg0K LSB1cGRhdGUgZHJhZnRzIGFzIHBlciB0aGUgY29tbWVudHMgcmVjZWl2ZWQg ZHVyaW5nIHRoaXMgbWVldGluZyBhbmQgZnJvbSANCnRoZSBtYWlsaW5nIGxp c3QNCi0gY29ycmVjdCBpbnNpZGUgdGhlIGltYWdlL3RpZmYgcmVnaXN0cmF0 aW9uIHRoZSBtYWdpYyBudW1iZXIgRVJST1INCg0KTWlkIEphbnVhcnkgMjAw MjoNCg0KLSBpc3N1ZSB0aGUgV0cgbGFzdCBjYWxsIGZvciBpbWFnZS90aWZm IHJlZ2lzdHJhdGlvbiBhcyBCQ1ANCi0gaXNzdWUgdGhlIFdHIGxhc3QgY2Fs bCBmb3IgaW1hZ2UtdGlmZi1meCByZWdpc3RyYXRpb24gYWQgUHJvcG9zZWQg U3RhbmRhcmQNCg0KTWlkIEZlYnJ1YXJ5IDIwMDINCg0KLSBpc3N1ZSB0aGUg SUVTRyBsYXN0IGNhbGwgZm9yIGltYWdlL3RpZmYNCi0gaXNzdWUgdGhlIElF U0cgbGFzdCBjYWxsIGZvciBpbWFnZS90aWZmLWZ4DQotIGZpbmFsaXplIHRo ZSBpbnRlcm9wZXJhYmlsaXR5IHRlc3QgcGxhbiwgYW5kIGlkZW50aWZ5IHBh cnRpY2lwYW50cw0KDQpBdCB0aGUgTWFyY2ggMjAwMiBJRVRGIG1lZXRpbmcN Cg0KLSB0byBoYXZlIGltYWdlL3RpZmYgcHVibGlzaGVkIGFzIEJDUA0KLSB0 byBoYXZlIGltYWdlL3RpZmYtZnggcHVibGlzaGVkIGFzIFByb3Bvc2VkIFN0 YW5kYXJkDQotIHRvIGhhdmUgdGhlIHRlc3QgcmVwb3J0IGF2YWlsYWJsZQ0K DQpNaWQgSnVuZSAyMDAyDQoNCi0gaXNzdWUgdGhlIFdHIGxhc3QgY2FsbCBm b3IgaW1hZ2UvdGlmZi1meCByZWdpc3RyYXRpb24gYW5kIHRpZmYtZnggZmls ZSANCmZvcm1hdCBzcGVjaWZpY2F0aW9uIGFzIERyYWZ0IFN0YW5kYXJkcw0K DQpKdWx5IDIwMDIgSUVURiBtZWV0aW5nDQoNCi0gaXNzdWUgSUVTRyBsYXN0 IGNhbGwgZm9yIGltYWdlL3RpZmYtZnggcmVnaXN0cmF0aW9uIGFuZCB0aWZm LWZ4IGZpbGUgDQpmb3JtYXQgc3BlY2lmaWNhdGlvbiBhcyBEcmFmdCBTdGFu ZGFyZA0KDQpNaWQgU2VtcHRlbWJlciAyMDAyDQoNCi0gdG8gaGF2ZSBpbWFn ZS90aWZmLWZ4IHJlZ2lzdHJhdGlvbiBhbmQgdGlmZi1meCBmaWxlIGZvcm1h dCANCnNwZWNpZmljYXRpb24gYXBwcm92ZWQgYnkgSUVTRyBhcyBEcmFmdCBT dGFuZGFyZHMNCg0KTkYgYW5kIEpLIGNvbmZpcm1lZCB0aGF0IG5vcm1hbGx5 IHRoZSA2IG1vbnRoICJ3YWl0IiBwZXJpb2QgYmV0d2VlbiBhIA0KUHJvcG9z ZWQgU3RhbmRhcmQgcHVibGljYXRpb24gYW5kIGl0cyBwcm9ncmVzc2lvbiB0 byBEcmFmdCBTdGFuZGFyZCBpcyANCmJhc2VkIG9uIHRoZSBkYXRlIG9mIElF U0cgYXBwcm92YWwsIGFuZCB0aGF0IHRoZSBBRHMgd2lsbCB0YWtlIHBhcnRp Y3VsYXIgDQpjYXJlIHRvIHNwZWVkIHVwIGRvY3VtZW50IHByb2Nlc3Npbmcs IGJhc2VkIG9uIHRoZSBleGlzdGluZyBkYWxheSBjYXVzZWQgDQpieSBleHRl cm5hbCByZWFzb25zLg0KDQpDQSBhc2tlZCBpZiB0aGVyZSB3ZXJlIG9iamVj dGlvbnMgdG8gdGhlIHByb3Bvc2VkIHBsYW4sIGFuZCBhcyBub25lIHdhcyAN CnJhaXNlZCwgdGhlIFdHIGV4cHJlc3NlZCBpcyBjb25zZW5zdXMgdG8gcHJv Y2VlZCBhcyBwcm9wb3NlZC4gVGhlIG1haWxpbmcgDQpsaXN0IHdpbGwgYmEg YXNrZWQgdG8gY29uZmlybSB0aGlzIGRlY2lzaW9uLg0KDQpMTSBwcmVzZW50 ZWQgdGhlbiB0aGUgc3RhdHVzIG9mIHRoZSAzIGRyYWZ0cy4NCg0KSW4gaW1h Z2UvdGlmZiByZWdpc3RyYXRpb246DQoNCi0gdGlmZi1yZWdiaXMtMDMgcmVt b3ZlcyBTLiBaaWxsZXMgZnJvbSB0aGUgYXV0aG9ycyBsaXN0cw0KLSB0aWZm LXJlZ2Jpcy0wNCBpcyBuZWVkZWQgdG8gY29ycmVjdCB0aWZmIG1hZ2ljIG51 bWJlciBlcnJvcg0KDQpJbiBpbWFnZS90aWZmLWZ4IHJlZ2lzdHJhdGlvbg0K DQotIHZlcnNpb24gMDEgcmVnaXN0ZXJzIGltYWdlL3RpZmYtZnggTUlNRSBz dWItdHlwZSBhbmQgLnRmeCBleHRlbnNpb24gZm9yIA0KcHJvZmlsZXMgSiwg QywgTCwgTSBhbmQgZnV0dXJlIGV4dGVuc2lvbnMsIGFuZCBtYXkgYmUgb3B0 aW9uYWxseSB1c2VkIA0KQUxTTyBmb3IgcHJvZmlsZXMgUyBhbmQgRg0KDQpJ biBpdGZmLWZ4ICh2ZXJzaW9uIDExKToNCg0KLSB0aGUgbmV3IE1JTUUgY29u dGVudC10eXBlIGFuZCBleHRlbnNpb24gYXJlIGFkZGVkDQotIGEgZGV0YWls ZWQgc3BlY2lmaWNhdGlvbiBvbiB3aGVuIHRvIHVzZSBpbWFnZS90aWZmIGFu ZCBpbWFnZS90aWZmLWZ4IGlzIA0KcHJvdmlkZWQNCi0gYXBwbGljYXRpb24g cGFyYW1ldGVycyBhcmUgcmVtb3ZlZCBmcm9tIHRoZSBzcGVjaWZpY2F0aW9u IGFzIHRoZXkgbWlnaHQNCmJlIGEgc291cmNlIG9mIGludGVyb3BlcmFiaWxp dHkgcHJvYmxlbXMNCi0gUy4gWmlsbGVzIGlzIHJlbW92ZWQgZnJvbSB0aGUg YXV0aG9yJ3MgbGlzdA0KDQpBZnRlciB0aGUgcHJlc2VudGF0aW9uLCB0aGUg V0cgZXhwcmVzc2VkIGNvbnNlbnN1cyBvbiB0aGUgY3VycmVudCANCmNvbnRl bnQgb2YgdGhlIDMgSS1EcywgYW5kIHRoZSBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QgaXMgcmVx dWlyZWQgdG8gY29uZmlybSB0aGlzLg0KDQpBcyBhIGdlbmVyYWwgcG9pbnQs IExhcnJ5IE1hc2ludGVyIGNvbW1lbnRlZCB0aGF0IHRoZSBXRyBhbHJlYWR5 IGhhcyBhIA0KbnVtYmVyIG9mIGlzc3VlZCBkb2N1bWVudHMsIGFuZCBhIG51 bWJlciBvZiBkb2N1bWVudHMgd2hpY2ggd2VyZSBhbHJlYWR5IA0KcHJvY2Vz c2VkIChXRywgSUVTRyBsYXN0IGNhbGxzLCBSRkMgZWRpdG9yIHF1ZXVlKSwg YW5kIHRoYXQgbm93IHRoYXQgYSANCm5ldyBpbWFnZS90aWZmLWZ4IGlzIGlu dHJvZHVjZWQsIHRoZSBXRyBuZWVkcyB0byBjaGVjayB0aGFtIGFsbC4gVGhl IG9ubHkgDQoyIERyYWZ0IFN0YW5kYXJkIGFscmVhZHkgaXNzdWVkIChSRkMz MTkxIGFuZCBSRkMzMTkyKSBkbyBub3QgbWVudGlvbiB0aGUgDQpNSU1FIHR5 cGUgdGh1cyBhcmUgb2sgYXMgdGhleSBhcmUuIFRoZSBpbXBsZW1lbnRlcnMg Z3VpZGUgbmVlZHMgdG8gYmUgDQpyZXZpc2VkLCBidXQgaXQgaXMgYWxyZWFk eSBvbiB0aGUgUkZDIGVkaXRvciBxdWV1ZSwgZm9yIGV4YW1wbGUuIE5GIA0K Y29tbWVudGVkIHRoYXQgaW4gc3VjaCBhIGNhc2UgdGhlIFdHIGlzIHJlcXVp cmVkIHRvIGNoZWNrIHdoZXJlIHRvIG1ha2UgDQp0aGUgbW9kaWZpY2F0aW9u cywgYW5kIHRoZSwgZGVwZW5kaW5nIG9uIHRoZSBpbXBhY3Qgb2YgdGhlIG1v ZGlmaWNhdGlvbnMgDQp0aGVtc2VsdmVzLCB0aGUgSUVTRyB3aWxsIGRlY2lk ZSBpZiBjb25zaWRlciBhY2NlcHRhYmxlIHRoZSBtb2RpZmljYXRpb24gDQp3 aGlsZSBpbiB0aGUgUkZDIGVkaXRvciBxdWV1ZSwgb3IgaXMgc29tZSByZWN5 Y2xpbmcgaXMgbmVlZGVkLiBJbiBjYXNlIA0KdGhhIGxhdHRlciBzb2x1dGlv biBpcyBjaG9vc2VuLCB0aGVuIHRoZSBJRVNHIHdpbGwgYWdhaW4gc3BlZWQg dXAgdGhlIA0KZG9jdW1lbnQgcHJvZ3Jlc3MgYXMgcG9zc2libGUuIA0KDQpD QSBhc2tlZCBBTEwgdGhlIGVkaXRvcnMgb2YgY3VycmVudCBkcmFmdHMgdG8g Y2FyZWZ1bGx5IGNoZWNrIHRoZWlyIA0KZG9jdW1lbnRzIChhbmQgdGhlIG1l bWJlciBvZiB0aGUgV0cgdG8gaGVscCB0aGVtIGNyb3NzLWNoZWNraW5nLCB0 b28pIA0KZm9yIHBsYWNlcyB3aGVyZSBpbWFnZS90aWZmIGFuZCBpbWFnZS90 aWZmLWZ4IHNwbGl0IG1pZ2h0IGJlIGludm9sdmVkLCANCmFuZCBwcm92aWRl IHRoZSBuZWVkZWQgY29ycmVjdGlvbnMgYW5kIHVwZGF0ZXMgQVNBUC4gQWdh aW4gdGhlIHByb2NlZHVyZXMgDQpmb3IgdGhlIEltcGxlbWVudGVycyBndWlk ZSAoaS5lLiB0aGUgcXVpY2tpZXN0IHBvc3NpYmxlIHBhdGgpIHdpbGwgYmUg DQp0YWtlbiBhbHNvIGZvciB0aGVzZSBvdGhlciBkb2NtZW50cy4gTkYgY29u ZmlybXMgdGhhdCB0aGUgSUVTRyB3aWxsIA0KZGVmaW5lIHRoZSBleGFjdCBw cm9jZWR1cmUgdG8gYmUgZm9sb3dlZC4NCg0KQXMgYWdhaW4gdGhlIHF1ZXN0 aW9uIGFib3V0IHRoZSBwb3NzaWJsZSBpbXBhdCBvZiBleHRlcm5hbCBJUFIg aXNzdWVzIA0KY291bGQgaGF2ZSBvbiB0aGUgdGlmZi1meCBzcGVjaWZpY2F0 aW9uLCBKSyByZW1pbmRlZCB0aGF0IHRoZXJlIGlzIGFuIA0KYXBwcm9wcmlh dGUgYm9pbGVycGxhdGUgdGV4dCB0byBiZSBpbmNsdWRlZCBpbnRvIGRvY3Vt ZW50cyB3aGVyZSB0aGVyZSANCiJtaWdodCIgYmUgSVBSIGlzc3VlcywgYW5k IHRoYXQgdGhpcyB0ZXh0IHdpbGwgcG9pbnQgdGhlIHJlYWRlciB0byB0aGUg DQphcHByb3ByaWF0ZSBJRVRGIHdlYiBwYWdlcyBhbmQgcmVwb3NpdG9yeSB0 aGVyZSB0aGUgSVBSIGlzc3VlcyBhbmQgY2xhaW1zIA0KYXJlIGtlcHQgdXAg dG8gZGF0ZS4gSUFCIGlzIGFsc28gY29uc2lkZXJpbmcgd3RoZXIgdGhpcyBi b2lsZXJwbGF0ZSANCnNob3VsZCBiZSBpbmNsdWRlZCBpbiBBTEwgcHVibGlz aGVkIFJGQ3MsIGFuZCBzdWdnZXN0IHRodXMgdG8gZG8gc28gDQp3aGVudmVy IHRoZSBXRyBmZWVscyBpdCBtaWdodCBoZWxwIGluIHByb2dyZXNzaW5nIGEg ZG9jdW1lbnQuDQoNClRoZW4gdGhlIERyYWZ0IFByb2dyZXNzaW9uIFBhdGgg Q29uY3VycmVuY2UgaXMgYWdhaW4gcmV2aXNlZDoNCg0KLSBpbWFnZS90aWZm IHJldmlzZWQgcmVnaXN0cmF0aW9uIGdvZXMgZnJvbSBJLUQgdG8gQkNQDQoN Ci0gaW1hZ2UvdGlmZi1meCBnb2VzIGZyb20gSS1EIHRvIFByb3Bvc2VkIFN0 YW5kYXJkLCB3YWl0cyA2IG1vbnRocywgYW5kDQppcyB1cGRhdGVkIGFzIEkt RCB3aGljaCBnb2VzIHRoZW4gZm9yIERyYWZ0IFN0YW5kYXJkDQoNClRoZSBX RyBleHByZXNzZXMgY29uc2Vuc3VzIG9uIHRoZSBwcm9wb3NlZCBwYXRocywg YW5kIHRoZSBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QgaXMgDQphc2tlZCB0byBjb25maXJtIGl0 Lg0KDQpUaGUgaXNzdWUgb2YgdGhlIHRpZmYtZnggaW1hZ2UgZmlsZSBmb3Jt YXQgc3BlY2lmaWNhdGlvbiBwcm9ncmVzc2lvbiBwYXRoIA0KaXMgbW9yZSBj b21wbGV4LCBhcyB0aGUgYWx0ZXJuYXRlcyBhcmU6DQoNCmEpIG1vdmUgZnJv bSBJLUQgdG8gRHJhZnQgU3RhbmRhcmQgKHdhaXRpbmcgd2hlbiBkZXBlbmRl bmNpZXMgYXJlIGRvbmUpDQoNCmIpIG1vdmUgZnJvbSBJLUQgdG8gUHJvcG9z ZWQgU3RhbmRhcmQgKHJlY3ljbGluZykgYW5kIHRoZSBpc3N1ZSB0aGUgDQp1 cGRhdGVkIEktRCBhbmQgbW9yZSB0aGlzIHRvIERyYWZ0IFN0YW5kYXJkLg0K DQpBcyB0aGUgV0cgZG9lcyBiZWxpZXZlIHRoaXMgaXMgYSBxdWVzdGlvbiBm b3IgdGhlIElFU0cgKGkuZS4gd2hpY2ggb2YgDQphbHRlcm5hdGUgYSkgb3Ig Yikgc2hvdWxkIGJlIGZvbGxvd2VkKSwgTkYgd2lsbCB0YWtlIGl0IHRvIHRo ZSBJRVNHIHdoaWNoIA0Kd2lsbCBhZHZpY2UgdGhlIFdHLg0KDQpBcyBhIGNv bmNsdXNpb24sIHRoZSBXRyBleHBlY3RzIHRoZSB3aG9sZSBzZXQgb2YgZG9j dW1lbnRzIGFib3V0IFRJRkYgYW5kIA0KVElGRi1GWCB0byBiZSBkb25lIHdp dGhpbiBTZXB0ZW1iZXIgMjAwMi4NCg0KDQo4IENvbmZpcm1hdGlvbiBvZiBt aWxlc3RvbmVzDQotIEZGUElNDQoNCkZpbmFsIGRyYWZ0IGR1ZSBmb3IgWC1t YXMgMjAwMQ0KDQotIEVTTVRQLUNPTk5FRw0KDQpOb3YgMjAwMSBmaW5hbCBk cmFmdCBzdWJtaXR0ZWQgKERvbmUpDQoNCkphbiAyMDAyIElFVEYgbGFzdCBj YWxsDQoNCi0gVElGRi1GWCBleHRlbnNpb24NCg0Kb24gaG9sZCB1bnRpbCBy ZWxldmFudCBuZXcgZG9jdW1lbnRzIGFyZSBhdCBhIHN0YWJsZSBzdGF0ZS4g TWF5YmUgRmVicnVhcnkNCjIwMDIuIA0KDQotIFRlcm1pbmFsIG1vZGUNCg0K RG9jdW1lbnRzIGRyb3BwZWQsIGFuZCByZW1vdmVkIGZyb20gbWlsZXN0b25l cyBsaXN0cw0KDQotIFJGQzIzMDEgcmV2aXNpb24gZG9jdW1lbnRzOg0KDQoo c2VlIGFib3ZlIHRoZSBkZXRhaWxlZCB0aW1lbGluZXMpLi4uDQoNCkFPQiBh bmQgQ2xvc2U6DQoNCnRoZSBtZWV0aW5nIGNsb3NlcyBhdCAxMDoyMHBtDQoN Cg== --663-1103527590-1010345815=:541072537-- From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Sun Jan 6 19:14:04 2002 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA27672 for ; Sun, 6 Jan 2002 19:14:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g06NVR805074 for ietf-fax-bks; Sun, 6 Jan 2002 15:31:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.notes.ricoh.co.jp (mail.notes.ricoh.co.jp [202.211.49.10]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g06NVP305070 for ; Sun, 6 Jan 2002 15:31:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from delsol.isd.ricoh.co.jp (IDENT:mirapoint@[133.139.250.75]) by mail.notes.ricoh.co.jp (8.9.3+3.2W/3.7W) id IAA05317 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 08:31:43 +0900 Received: from lily.toda.ricoh.co.jp (lily.toda.ricoh.co.jp [133.139.60.72]) by delsol.isd.ricoh.co.jp (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id ACB37815; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 08:31:25 +0900 (JST) Received: from localhost (maple.toda.ricoh.co.jp [133.139.60.73]) by lily.toda.ricoh.co.jp (8.9.1/3.7Wlily sendmail.cf v8) with ESMTP id IAA00690 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 08:29:39 +0900 (JST) To: ietf-fax@imc.org Subject: content-type description in impl-guide. X-Mailer: Mew version 1.94.2 on Emacs 20.4 / Mule 4.1 (AOI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20020107083859P.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 08:38:59 +0900 (JST) From: Hiroshi Tamura X-Dispatcher: imput version 20000228(IM140) Lines: 22 Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Folks, Is the sentences below our conclusion? 5.4 Content-Type for the file format The content-type "image/tiff" should only be used for Profiles S and F. Some existing implementations based on [RFC 2301] may use "image/tiff" for other Profiles. However, this usage is now deprecated. Instead, the content-type "image/tiff-fx" whose registratin is being defined in [TIFF-FX-REG] should be used. To maximize interworking with devices that are only capable of rendering Profile S or F, "image/tiff" SHOULD be used when transporting Profile S or F. I will prepare the new version within this week. -- Hiroshi Tamura, Ricoh Company, LTD. E-mail: tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Sun Jan 6 21:56:07 2002 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA29829 for ; Sun, 6 Jan 2002 21:56:06 -0500 (EST) Received: by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g072L9807876 for ietf-fax-bks; Sun, 6 Jan 2002 18:21:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from ariel.eastgw.xerox.com (ariel.xerox.com [208.140.33.25]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g072L7307872 for ; Sun, 6 Jan 2002 18:21:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from godzilla.ADOC.xerox.com (godzilla.ADOC.xerox.com [13.242.128.10]) by ariel.eastgw.xerox.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA23535; Sun, 6 Jan 2002 21:20:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from mercury.adoc.xerox.com (mercury [13.242.100.20]) by godzilla.ADOC.xerox.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8/ADOC-HUB-1.7) with ESMTP id SAA06952; Sun, 6 Jan 2002 18:21:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by mercury.ADOC.xerox.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2654.89) id ; Sun, 6 Jan 2002 18:21:08 -0800 Message-ID: <51B8ABCE456FD111899900805F6FD6EE0D9123F9@mercury.ADOC.xerox.com> From: "McIntyre, Lloyd" To: "'Hiroshi Tamura'" , ietf-fax@imc.org Subject: RE: content-type description in impl-guide. Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 18:21:08 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2654.89) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Tamura-san, I believe your statement is consistent with the consensus. Thanks, Lloyd > -----Original Message----- > From: Hiroshi Tamura [mailto:tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp] > Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2002 3:39 PM > To: ietf-fax@imc.org > Subject: content-type description in impl-guide. > > > > Folks, > > Is the sentences below our conclusion? > > 5.4 Content-Type for the file format > > The content-type "image/tiff" should only be used for > Profiles S and F. > Some existing implementations based on [RFC 2301] may use > "image/tiff" > for other Profiles. However, this usage is now deprecated. Instead, > the content-type "image/tiff-fx" whose registratin is being defined > in [TIFF-FX-REG] should be used. > > To maximize interworking with devices that are only capable of > rendering Profile S or F, "image/tiff" SHOULD be used when > transporting Profile S or F. > > I will prepare the new version within this week. > > -- > Hiroshi Tamura, Ricoh Company, LTD. > E-mail: tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp > From subs-reminder@imc.org Mon Jan 7 18:55:42 2002 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA01397 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 18:55:41 -0500 (EST) From: subs-reminder@imc.org Received: by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g07Ntdg15898; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 15:55:39 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 15:55:39 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200201072355.g07Ntdg15898@above.proper.com> To: fax-archive@ietf.org Subject: [[882281530]] Subscription to ietf-fax for fax-archive@lists.ietf.org Greetings. This message is a periodic reminder that fax-archive@lists.ietf.org is subscribed to the ietf-fax mailing list. There are two purposes for this message: - If this message is bounced by your mail server, I can remove you from the mailing list and reduce waste of bandwidth and resources. (If you are reading this message, it clearly didn't get bounced!) - Some people stay subscribed to mailing lists even though they do not want to because they do not know how to unsubscribe. If you want to stay subscribed to the ietf-fax mailing list, you do not need to do anything. On the other hand, if you want to unsubscribe from this list, go to the following link: You can also unsubscribe by email. To do so, you can respond to this message and I will unsubscribe you by hand in the next few days. Alternatively, you can send a plain-text message to: ietf-fax-request@imc.org with the single word unsubscribe in the body of the message. This last method assumes that the "From:" address in your mail is "fax-archive@lists.ietf.org". If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. --Paul Hoffman, list administrator From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Mon Jan 14 02:55:09 2002 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA29550 for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 02:55:09 -0500 (EST) Received: by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g0E79L825044 for ietf-fax-bks; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 23:09:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from adobe.com (smtp-relay-1.adobe.com [192.150.11.1]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g0E79K325037 for ; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 23:09:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from inner-relay-2.corp.adobe.com ([153.32.1.52]) by adobe.com (1.0.0/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g0E7AU617400 for ; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 23:10:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailsj-v1.corp.adobe.com (calsj-dev.corp.adobe.com [153.32.1.193]) by inner-relay-2.corp.adobe.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g0E782s05085 for ; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 23:08:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from larrypad ([130.248.188.117]) by mailsj-v1.corp.adobe.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15 v1 Jul 11 2001 16:32:57) with ESMTP id GPX2J700.FB6; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 23:09:07 -0800 Reply-To: From: "Larry Masinter" To: "'Hiroshi Tamura'" Cc: Subject: RE: content-type description in impl-guide. Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 23:09:07 -0800 Message-ID: <002801c19cca$5b73ff20$0b78bfd1@larrypad> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 In-Reply-To: <20020107083859P.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > 5.4 Content-Type for the file format > > The content-type "image/tiff" should only be used for Profiles S and F. > Some existing implementations based on [RFC 2301] may use "image/tiff" > for other Profiles. Are there, in fact, any such implementations? Which profiles beyond S and F are used with image/tiff? There were no implementations that used "image/tiff" with any profiles other than S and F listed in any of the interoperability reports so far. In searching the Internet for descriptions of Internet Fax implementations, I can't find any that use "image/tiff" for profiles other than S and F. If the consensus is that this statement is true, then could someone who believes this statement name any of these "existing implementations", please? > However, this usage is now deprecated. Instead, > the content-type "image/tiff-fx" whose registratin is being defined > in [TIFF-FX-REG] should be used. > > To maximize interworking with devices that are only capable of > rendering Profile S or F, "image/tiff" SHOULD be used when > transporting Profile S or F. > > I will prepare the new version within this week. > > -- > Hiroshi Tamura, Ricoh Company, LTD. > E-mail: tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp > From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Mon Jan 14 12:26:37 2002 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA08226 for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 12:26:37 -0500 (EST) Received: by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g0EFeOn09886 for ietf-fax-bks; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 07:40:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g0EFeK309878 for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 07:40:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04624; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 10:40:19 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200201141540.KAA04624@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: ietf-fax@imc.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-fax-tiff-regbis-04.txt Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 10:40:18 -0500 Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Internet Fax Working Group of the IETF. Title : Tag Image File Format (TIFF) - image/tiff MIME Sub-type Registration Author(s) : G. Parsons, J. Rafferty Filename : draft-ietf-fax-tiff-regbis-04.txt Pages : 7 Date : 11-Jan-02 This document describes the registration of the MIME sub-type image/tiff. The baseline encoding is defined by [TIFF]. This document refines an earlier sub-type registration in RFC 1528 [TPC.INT]. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-fax-tiff-regbis-04.txt To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-fax-tiff-regbis-04.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-fax-tiff-regbis-04.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <20020111152535.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-fax-tiff-regbis-04.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-fax-tiff-regbis-04.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <20020111152535.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Mon Jan 14 18:16:15 2002 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA24792 for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 18:16:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g0EMg6121600 for ietf-fax-bks; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 14:42:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.notes.ricoh.co.jp (mail.notes.ricoh.co.jp [202.211.49.10]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g0EMg4321596 for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 14:42:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from delsol.isd.ricoh.co.jp (IDENT:mirapoint@[133.139.250.75]) by mail.notes.ricoh.co.jp (8.9.3+3.2W/3.7W) id HAA01246; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 07:42:03 +0900 Received: from lily.toda.ricoh.co.jp (lily.toda.ricoh.co.jp [133.139.60.72]) by delsol.isd.ricoh.co.jp (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id ACC66893; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 07:42:02 +0900 (JST) Received: from localhost (maple.toda.ricoh.co.jp [133.139.60.73]) by lily.toda.ricoh.co.jp (8.9.1/3.7Wlily sendmail.cf v8) with ESMTP id HAA01237; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 07:40:08 +0900 (JST) To: LMM@acm.org Cc: ietf-fax@imc.org Subject: RE: content-type description in impl-guide. In-Reply-To: <002801c19cca$5b73ff20$0b78bfd1@larrypad> References: <20020107083859P.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> <002801c19cca$5b73ff20$0b78bfd1@larrypad> X-Mailer: Mew version 1.94.2 on Emacs 20.4 / Mule 4.1 (AOI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20020115074247B.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 07:42:47 +0900 (JST) From: Hiroshi Tamura X-Dispatcher: imput version 20000228(IM140) Lines: 23 Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Larry, > > The content-type "image/tiff" should only be used for Profiles S and > F. > > Some existing implementations based on [RFC 2301] may use > "image/tiff" > > for other Profiles. > > Are there, in fact, any such implementations? Which profiles beyond > S and F are used with image/tiff? There were no implementations > that used "image/tiff" with any profiles other than S and F listed > in any of the interoperability reports so far. In searching the > Internet for descriptions of Internet Fax implementations, I can't > find any that use "image/tiff" for profiles other than S and F. Some Japanese manufactures' ifax ***products*** use "image/tiff" for Profle J, although the ifax products of our company do not have Profile J. -- Hiroshi Tamura, Ricoh Company, LTD. E-mail: tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Mon Jan 14 19:54:26 2002 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA27750 for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 19:54:26 -0500 (EST) Received: by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g0F0Fru24164 for ietf-fax-bks; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 16:15:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from ariel.eastgw.xerox.com (ariel.xerox.com [208.140.33.25]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g0F0Fq324160 for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 16:15:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from godzilla.ADOC.xerox.com (godzilla.ADOC.xerox.com [13.242.128.10]) by ariel.eastgw.xerox.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA17895; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 19:15:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from mercury.adoc.xerox.com (mercury [13.242.100.20]) by godzilla.ADOC.xerox.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8/ADOC-HUB-1.7) with ESMTP id QAA19130; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 16:15:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by mercury.ADOC.xerox.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2654.89) id ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 16:15:51 -0800 Message-ID: <51B8ABCE456FD111899900805F6FD6EE0D912432@mercury.ADOC.xerox.com> From: "McIntyre, Lloyd" To: "'Hiroshi Tamura'" , LMM@acm.org Cc: ietf-fax@imc.org Subject: RE: content-type description in impl-guide. Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 16:15:50 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2654.89) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Larry, Please note that both the Xerox Workcenter Pro 785 and 685 products support Profile J, using image/tiff. You may also wish to check out Sagems 3750 and 3850 color IFax products which appear to support Profile C. Lloyd > -----Original Message----- > From: Hiroshi Tamura [mailto:tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp] > Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 2:43 PM > To: LMM@acm.org > Cc: ietf-fax@imc.org > Subject: RE: content-type description in impl-guide. > > > > Larry, > > > > The content-type "image/tiff" should only be used for > Profiles S and > > F. > > > Some existing implementations based on [RFC 2301] may use > > "image/tiff" > > > for other Profiles. > > > > Are there, in fact, any such implementations? Which profiles beyond > > S and F are used with image/tiff? There were no implementations > > that used "image/tiff" with any profiles other than S and F listed > > in any of the interoperability reports so far. In searching the > > Internet for descriptions of Internet Fax implementations, I can't > > find any that use "image/tiff" for profiles other than S and F. > > Some Japanese manufactures' ifax ***products*** use "image/tiff" > for Profle J, although the ifax products of our company do not > have Profile J. > > -- > Hiroshi Tamura, Ricoh Company, LTD. > E-mail: tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp > From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Tue Jan 15 07:05:17 2002 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA19166 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 07:05:16 -0500 (EST) Received: by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g0FBTH616648 for ietf-fax-bks; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 03:29:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g0FBTF316644 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 03:29:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA17954; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 06:29:04 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200201151129.GAA17954@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: ietf-fax@imc.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-fax-implementers-guide-08.txt Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 06:29:04 -0500 Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Internet Fax Working Group of the IETF. Title : Implementers Guide for Facsimile Using Internet Mail Author(s) : V. Cancio, M. Moldovan, H. Tamura, D. Wing Filename : draft-ietf-fax-implementers-guide-08.txt Pages : 24 Date : 14-Jan-02 This document is intended for the implementers of software which uses email to send to facsimiles using RFC 2305 and 2532. This is an informational document and its guidelines do not supersede the referenced documents. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-fax-implementers-guide-08.txt To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-fax-implementers-guide-08.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-fax-implementers-guide-08.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <20020114175514.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-fax-implementers-guide-08.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-fax-implementers-guide-08.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <20020114175514.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Tue Jan 15 23:32:52 2002 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA21839 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 23:32:52 -0500 (EST) Received: by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g0G3u2n16788 for ietf-fax-bks; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 19:56:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.notes.ricoh.co.jp (mail3.notes.ricoh.co.jp [202.211.49.20]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g0G3u0316783 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 19:56:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from delsol.isd.ricoh.co.jp (IDENT:mirapoint@delsol [133.139.250.75]) by mail.notes.ricoh.co.jp (8.9.3+3.2W/3.7W) id MAA06757; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 12:56:01 +0900 (JST) Received: from lily.toda.ricoh.co.jp (lily.toda.ricoh.co.jp [133.139.60.72]) by delsol.isd.ricoh.co.jp (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id ACF11633; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 12:56:00 +0900 (JST) Received: from localhost (maple.toda.ricoh.co.jp [133.139.60.73]) by lily.toda.ricoh.co.jp (8.9.1/3.7Wlily sendmail.cf v8) with ESMTP id MAA01316; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 12:54:05 +0900 (JST) To: ietf-fax@imc.org Cc: ned.freed@mrochek.com, Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-fax-implementers-guide-08.txt In-Reply-To: <200201151129.GAA17954@ietf.org> References: <200201151129.GAA17954@ietf.org> X-Mailer: Mew version 1.94.2 on Emacs 20.4 / Mule 4.1 (AOI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20020116125645R.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 12:56:45 +0900 (JST) From: Hiroshi Tamura X-Dispatcher: imput version 20000228(IM140) Lines: 22 Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Folks, > Filename : draft-ietf-fax-implementers-guide-08.txt According to the recent discussion, I added "content-type" section. Also, there are other modifications for wording TIFF-FX and TIFF, etc. But, I think they are at editorial level. Other editors agree to them. It will be on RFC editors' queue, I believe. .... BTW, within a few days, I summarize our current situation, as chair. -- Hiroshi Tamura, Ricoh Company, LTD. E-mail: tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Mon Jan 21 05:59:11 2002 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA04901 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 05:59:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g0LAGa812409 for ietf-fax-bks; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 02:16:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.notes.ricoh.co.jp (mail3.notes.ricoh.co.jp [202.211.49.20]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g0LAGX312398 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 02:16:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from azteca.isd.ricoh.co.jp (IDENT:mirapoint@azteca [133.139.250.74]) by mail.notes.ricoh.co.jp (8.9.3+3.2W/3.7W) id TAA25867; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 19:16:31 +0900 (JST) Received: from lily.toda.ricoh.co.jp (lily.toda.ricoh.co.jp [133.139.60.72]) by azteca.isd.ricoh.co.jp (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id ACB51505; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 19:16:30 +0900 (JST) Received: from localhost (maple.toda.ricoh.co.jp [133.139.60.73]) by lily.toda.ricoh.co.jp (8.9.1/3.7Wlily sendmail.cf v8) with ESMTP id TAA01560; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 19:14:30 +0900 (JST) To: ietf-fax@imc.org Cc: Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it, ned.freed@mrochek.com Subject: FAX WG status X-Mailer: Mew version 1.94.2 on Emacs 20.4 / Mule 4.1 (AOI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20020121191719O.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 19:17:19 +0900 (JST) From: Hiroshi Tamura X-Dispatcher: imput version 20000228(IM140) Lines: 106 Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Folks, We have a few remaing things to do. I comment them below, according to the order of the SLC minutes. I was not at the SLC meeting. So, if there are mistakes or something, please let us know. Also, any comments are appreciated. 1 Service (draft-ietf-fax-service-v2-05.txt) We already have done for WG Last Call and IESG request. There are few differences from the previous version. Not technical, just trivial things. No action is necessary. Only reference issue. 2 Content Negotiation (draft-ietf-fax-content-negotiation-05.txt) The IETF last call finished. It is in RFC-editors' queue. No action is necessary. 3 Timely Delivery (draft-ietf-fax-timely-delivery-05.txt) The WG last call finished. Claudio or I will request IETF last call to the IESG. 4 Fax Gateway (draft-ietf-fax-gateway-protocol-06.txt) (draft-ietf-fax-gateway-options-04.txt) The WG last call finished. Last year I requested IETF last call. It is in Ned's queue. After his review, we may do action. 5 FFPIM (draft-ietf-fax-ffpim-01.txt) After Dave submits the new version, we can do WG last call. The content has no problems, I think. We wait fot it. 6 ESMTP-CONNEG (draft-ietf-fax-esmtp-conneg-01.txt) There was modification from the previous version. But, according to -01, there seems to be no problems. If you agree to it, we can do WG last call. Claudio or I will do it soon. 7 Terminal mode issue (draft-maeda-faxwg-terminal-mode-goals-01.txt) (draft-maeda-faxwg-terminal-mode-protocol-01.txt) (draft-maeda-faxwg-fax-processing-status-01.txt) We agree to the dropping from our milestone. This is the final notice. If anything, please say it. Unless there are lots of support, we should drop them. 8 TIFF-FX extension (draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-extension-1-01.txt) (darft-mcintyre-feature-schema-extension1-00.txt) Until the TIFF-FX itself is solved, there is no action. 9 Addressing issue (draft-allocchio-gstn-01.txt) Claudio will submit the new version. We wait for it. 10 ITU-T In the next month, the meeting is held. I will prepare the letter, according to the result of SLC meeting. 11 TIFF-FX (draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-11.txt) The difference is the description about the use of two content-types: image/tiff and image/tiff-fx. There are no problems. We should do WG Last Call as recycle ***Proposed Standard*** at first, according to the result of the SLC meeting. Claudio and Lloyd, Am I right? 12 TIFF registration (draft-ietf-fax-tiff-regbis-04.txt) It is corrected for Magic Number issue. We can do WG last call as BCP. Claudio or I will do it soon. 13 TIFF-FX registration (draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-reg-01.txt) It seems that there are no problems. We can do WG last call as BCP. Claudio or I will do it soon. Also, the interoperability test will be necessary for Draft Standard. 14 Impl. Guide (draft-ietf-fax-implementers-guide.08.txt) The content-type issue is reflected in it. The IETF Last Call is finished. But, there is only one reference issue on draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-reg-01.txt. So, I think the two I-D should be published at the same time,,,. Is it true? ......... BTW, Minneapolis meeting is coming. I think it is better to have our meeting for the status confirmation, although there are few things to discuss. Claudio, what do you think about it? I have been very busy these days. Please do not expect my early response. Regards, -- Hiroshi Tamura, Ricoh Company, LTD. E-mail: tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Tue Jan 22 14:14:56 2002 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA05693 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 14:14:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g0MIckm28069 for ietf-fax-bks; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 10:38:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from ariel.eastgw.xerox.com (ariel.xerox.com [208.140.33.25]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g0MIci328065 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 10:38:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from godzilla.ADOC.xerox.com (godzilla.ADOC.xerox.com [13.242.128.10]) by ariel.eastgw.xerox.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA28448; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 13:38:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from mercury.adoc.xerox.com (mercury [13.242.100.20]) by godzilla.ADOC.xerox.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8/ADOC-HUB-1.7) with ESMTP id KAA23901; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 10:38:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by mercury.ADOC.xerox.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2654.89) id ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 10:38:30 -0800 Message-ID: <51B8ABCE456FD111899900805F6FD6EE0D91245F@mercury.ADOC.xerox.com> From: "McIntyre, Lloyd" To: "'Hiroshi Tamura'" , ietf-fax@imc.org Cc: Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it, ned.freed@mrochek.com Subject: RE: FAX WG status Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 10:38:30 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2654.89) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Tamura-san, Please see my response below. Regards, Lloyd > 8 TIFF-FX extension (draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-extension-1-01.txt) > (darft-mcintyre-feature-schema-extension1-00.txt) > > Until the TIFF-FX itself is solved, there is no action. Based upon the section 8 entry, "- TIFF-FX extension on hold until relevant new documents are at a stable state. Maybe February 2002.", there may be less potential for misunderstanding if this were stated as - no action until relevant documents have obtained a level of stability. > > 11 TIFF-FX (draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-11.txt) > > The difference is the description about the use of two content-types: > image/tiff and image/tiff-fx. There are no problems. > We should do WG Last Call as recycle ***Proposed Standard*** at first, > according to the result of the SLC meeting. > This is not correct. Ned, our AD, has accepted an action to obtain IESG clarification as to whether it is necessary to recycle TIFF-FX to Proposed Standard. A case may be made that it is NOT necessary to recycle to Proposed Standard (i.e. retain in current state of pending Last Call for Draft Standard) since there were no file format features (i.e. encoding features) added to TIFF-FX. Ned - what is the status with regard to IESG evaluation of the case? It is essential that we obtain IESG clarification very soon, given the January milestone for WG Last Call towards Proposed Standard and March milestone for approval of Proposed Standard, which is essential if a September milestone for approval of Draft Standard is to be realized. > > > 13 TIFF-FX registration (draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-reg-01.txt) > > It seems that there are no problems. We can do WG last call as BCP. > Claudio or I will do it soon. > Also, the interoperability test will be necessary for Draft Standard. This is basically correct, however, the last call should be for Proposed Standard. WG Last Call should be issued very soon, given the mid-January milestone. > > 14 Impl. Guide (draft-ietf-fax-implementers-guide.08.txt) > > The content-type issue is reflected in it. The IETF Last Call > is finished. > But, there is only one reference issue on > draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-reg-01.txt. > So, I think the two I-D should be published at the same time,,,. > Is it true? I agree, with one small clarification. Maybe more appropriate to say something like - the two I-Ds should be approved at the same time,,,. > > ......... > > BTW, Minneapolis meeting is coming. I think it is better > to have our meeting for the status confirmation, > although there are few things to discuss. > Given the milestones below, I believe there will be a lot to discuss with regard to TIFF-FX and image/tiff-fx registration progression to Draft Standard. At the March 2002 IETF meeting - to have image/tiff published as BCP - to have image/tiff-fx published as Proposed Standard - to have the test report available Mid June 2002 - issue the WG last call for image/tiff-fx registration and tiff-fx file format specification as Draft Standards July 2002 IETF meeting - issue IESG last call for image/tiff-fx registration and tiff-fx file format specification as Draft Standard Mid September 2002 - to have image/tiff-fx registration and tiff-fx file format specification approved by IESG as Draft Standards From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Tue Jan 22 23:37:27 2002 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA21591 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 23:37:26 -0500 (EST) Received: by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g0N417e09536 for ietf-fax-bks; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 20:01:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.notes.ricoh.co.jp (mail3.notes.ricoh.co.jp [202.211.49.20]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g0N414309530 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 20:01:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from azteca.isd.ricoh.co.jp (IDENT:mirapoint@azteca [133.139.250.74]) by mail.notes.ricoh.co.jp (8.9.3+3.2W/3.7W) id MAA00990; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 12:53:13 +0900 (JST) Received: from lily.toda.ricoh.co.jp (lily.toda.ricoh.co.jp [133.139.60.72]) by azteca.isd.ricoh.co.jp (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id ACB79957; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 12:53:12 +0900 (JST) Received: from localhost (maple.toda.ricoh.co.jp [133.139.60.73]) by lily.toda.ricoh.co.jp (8.9.1/3.7Wlily sendmail.cf v8) with ESMTP id MAA01673; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 12:51:11 +0900 (JST) To: Lloyd.McIntyre@pahv.xerox.com Cc: ietf-fax@imc.org, Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it, ned.freed@mrochek.com Subject: RE: FAX WG status In-Reply-To: <51B8ABCE456FD111899900805F6FD6EE0D91245F@mercury.ADOC.xerox.com> References: <51B8ABCE456FD111899900805F6FD6EE0D91245F@mercury.ADOC.xerox.com> X-Mailer: Mew version 1.94.2 on Emacs 20.4 / Mule 4.1 (AOI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20020123125405Z.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 12:54:05 +0900 (JST) From: Hiroshi Tamura X-Dispatcher: imput version 20000228(IM140) Lines: 51 Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lloyd, > > 11 TIFF-FX (draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-11.txt) > > > > The difference is the description about the use of two content-types: > > image/tiff and image/tiff-fx. There are no problems. > > We should do WG Last Call as recycle ***Proposed Standard*** at first, > > according to the result of the SLC meeting. > This is not correct. > Ned, our AD, has accepted an action to obtain IESG clarification as to > whether it is necessary to recycle TIFF-FX to Proposed Standard. A case may > be made that it is NOT necessary to recycle to Proposed Standard (i.e. > retain in current state of pending Last Call for Draft Standard) since there > were no file format features (i.e. encoding features) added to TIFF-FX. OK. Thanks for your clarification. > Ned - what is the status with regard to IESG evaluation of the case? > It is essential that we obtain IESG clarification very soon, given the > January milestone for WG Last Call towards Proposed Standard and March > milestone for approval of Proposed Standard, which is essential if a > September milestone for approval of Draft Standard is to be realized. Ned, we need your comment. Please do. > > 13 TIFF-FX registration (draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-reg-01.txt) > > > > It seems that there are no problems. We can do WG last call as BCP. > > Claudio or I will do it soon. > > Also, the interoperability test will be necessary for Draft Standard. > This is basically correct, however, the last call should be for Proposed > Standard. WG Last Call should be issued very soon, given the mid-January > milestone. Oh, copy and paste error. In a few days, We will do for Proposed Standard. > > BTW, Minneapolis meeting is coming. I think it is better > > to have our meeting for the status confirmation, > > although there are few things to discuss. > Given the milestones below, I believe there will be a lot to discuss with > regard to TIFF-FX and image/tiff-fx registration progression to Draft > Standard. OK. I request our meeting slot sooner or later. -- Hiroshi Tamura, Ricoh Company, LTD. E-mail: tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Fri Jan 25 04:29:15 2002 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA27624 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 04:29:14 -0500 (EST) Received: by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g0P8xN809104 for ietf-fax-bks; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 00:59:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.notes.ricoh.co.jp (mail3.notes.ricoh.co.jp [202.211.49.20]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g0P8xG309093 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 00:59:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from azteca.isd.ricoh.co.jp (IDENT:mirapoint@azteca [133.139.250.74]) by mail.notes.ricoh.co.jp (8.9.3+3.2W/3.7W) id RAA11220 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 17:55:52 +0900 (JST) Received: from lily.toda.ricoh.co.jp (lily.toda.ricoh.co.jp [133.139.60.72]) by azteca.isd.ricoh.co.jp (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id ACC23697; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 17:55:51 +0900 (JST) Received: from localhost (maple.toda.ricoh.co.jp [133.139.60.73]) by lily.toda.ricoh.co.jp (8.9.1/3.7Wlily sendmail.cf v8) with ESMTP id RAA01857 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 17:53:48 +0900 (JST) To: ietf-fax@imc.org Subject: WG Last call for draft-ietf-fax-esmtp-conneg-01.txt X-Mailer: Mew version 1.94.2 on Emacs 20.4 / Mule 4.1 (AOI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20020125175654R.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 17:56:54 +0900 (JST) From: Hiroshi Tamura X-Dispatcher: imput version 20000228(IM140) Lines: 28 Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Folks, This is the WG Last call notice for draft-ietf-fax-esmtp-conneg-01.txt We agreed to the WG Last Call at SLC meeting, if there are no further comment. The WG Last Call period is 2 weeks. It closes on February 8. If you have "last comments", please send them to our ML by that time. --------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY This document defines a content negotiation SMTP service extension [ESMTP1, ESMTP2] whereby an SMTP client may request information about content capabilities of the target device or system that is serviced by an SMTP server. The SMTP server may report the target's content capabilities back to the client. This process emulates a classic facsimile start-of- session capabilities negotiation. This service extension is primarily intended for "direct" SMTP transfers, although relayed scenarios are permitted. --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Hiroshi Tamura, Co-chair of IETF-FAX WG E-mail: tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Fri Jan 25 04:29:32 2002 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA27646 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 04:29:31 -0500 (EST) Received: by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g0P8xJ209101 for ietf-fax-bks; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 00:59:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.notes.ricoh.co.jp (mail3.notes.ricoh.co.jp [202.211.49.20]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g0P8xG309092 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 00:59:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from delsol.isd.ricoh.co.jp (IDENT:mirapoint@delsol [133.139.250.75]) by mail.notes.ricoh.co.jp (8.9.3+3.2W/3.7W) id RAA11194 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 17:55:47 +0900 (JST) Received: from lily.toda.ricoh.co.jp (lily.toda.ricoh.co.jp [133.139.60.72]) by delsol.isd.ricoh.co.jp (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id ACI66700; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 17:55:46 +0900 (JST) Received: from localhost (maple.toda.ricoh.co.jp [133.139.60.73]) by lily.toda.ricoh.co.jp (8.9.1/3.7Wlily sendmail.cf v8) with ESMTP id RAA01853 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 17:53:42 +0900 (JST) To: ietf-fax@imc.org Subject: WG Last call for draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-reg-01.txt X-Mailer: Mew version 1.94.2 on Emacs 20.4 / Mule 4.1 (AOI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20020125175648R.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 17:56:48 +0900 (JST) From: Hiroshi Tamura X-Dispatcher: imput version 20000228(IM140) Lines: 22 Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Folks, This is the WG Last call notice for draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-reg-01.txt. We agreed to the WG Last Call at SLC meeting, if there are no further comment. The WG Last Call period is 2 weeks. It closes on February 8. If you have "last comments", please send them to our ML by that time. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Abstract This document describes the registration of the MIME sub-type image/tiff-fx. The encodings are defined by File Format for Internet Fax [TIFF-FX] and its extensions. --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Hiroshi Tamura, Co-chair of IETF-FAX WG E-mail: tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Fri Jan 25 23:14:35 2002 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA22950 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 23:14:34 -0500 (EST) Received: by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g0Q3eAp29274 for ietf-fax-bks; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 19:40:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from umbriel.eastgw.xerox.com (umbriel.xerox.com [208.140.33.26]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g0Q3e8329269 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 19:40:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from norman.cp10.es.xerox.com (norman.cp10.es.xerox.com [13.240.124.12]) by umbriel.eastgw.xerox.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA01240; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 22:40:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from x-crt-es-ms1.cp10.es.xerox.com (x-crt-es-ms1 [13.240.124.41]) by norman.cp10.es.xerox.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA25429; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 19:41:09 -0800 (PST) Received: by x-crt-es-ms1.cp10.es.xerox.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 19:40:07 -0800 Message-ID: <918C79AB552BD211A2BD00805F15CE850635E084@x-crt-es-ms1.cp10.es.xerox.com> From: "Hastings, Tom N" To: Hiroshi Tamura , Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it Cc: ietf-fax@imc.org, "McIntyre, Lloyd" Subject: RE: No description for image/tiff in Impl-Guide Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 19:40:07 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Sorry for the late comments on the Implementer's Guide and referencing other documents and containing conformance language. My comments may be too late. As I understand it the 'Implementers Guide for Facsimile Using Internet Mail' was approved by the IESG for publication as an Informational RFC on November 15, 2001. So are we talking about an update of that document, i.e., another RFC that would Obsolete the first one? Or if the Editor's queue is long, perhaps the updated document will be approved by the IESG for publication before the first one is assigned an RFC number? My understanding is that Informational RFCs, such as the Implementers Guide, can refer to Internet-Drafts, while RFCs on the standards track cannot make normative references to Internet-Drafts (they are held up until such normative references become RFCs as well). In other words, all references from an Information RFC are, by definition, non-normative. I also understand that Informational RFCs shouldn't have the UPPERCASE conformance language in them, such as MUST, MAY, and SHOULD, since they are only explaining things. So the Implementer's Guide should use lower case must, may, and should. Also, the Implementer's Guide could say "RFC xxxx recommends that image/tiff be used ..." or perhaps, "according to RFC xxxx image/tiff should be used ...". However, I may be being too fussy here on this last point. Tom Hastings -----Original Message----- From: Hiroshi Tamura [mailto:tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp] Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 14:54 To: Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it Cc: ietf-fax@imc.org; Lloyd.McIntyre@pahv.xerox.com Subject: Re: No description for image/tiff in Impl-Guide Hallo Claudio. > Now that there will be TWO separated image/tiff and image/tiff-fx MIME > sub-types, I believe the Implementers guide should at least point out that > image/tiff is for some profiles only and the image/tiff-fx should be used > for the other profiles. Implementers must be VERY aware of this fact, and > he Implementers guide must poit it out. Thus some revision seems necessary. Yes, it is better. But, a question. As we already know, the IETF Last Call finished. The I-D is already in RFC-editors' queue. But, "image/tiff-fx" itself is not standardized, i.e., it is not in RFC, although most of us already agreed to it. Although it is for informational RFC, if the guide addresses "image/tiff" and "image/tiff-fx", do we have to wait until draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-reg-01.txt or draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-11.txt **become** RFC, Or, is it possible to include it before it? -- Hiroshi Tamura, Ricoh Company, LTD. E-mail: tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Sat Jan 26 02:02:15 2002 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA26190 for ; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 02:02:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g0Q6XI403442 for ietf-fax-bks; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 22:33:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.notes.ricoh.co.jp (mail3.notes.ricoh.co.jp [202.211.49.20]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g0Q6XG303436 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 22:33:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from azteca.isd.ricoh.co.jp (IDENT:mirapoint@azteca [133.139.250.74]) by mail.notes.ricoh.co.jp (8.9.3+3.2W/3.7W) id PAA12500; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 15:33:16 +0900 (JST) Received: from lily.toda.ricoh.co.jp (lily.toda.ricoh.co.jp [133.139.60.72]) by azteca.isd.ricoh.co.jp (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id ACC29385; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 15:33:15 +0900 (JST) Received: from localhost (maple.toda.ricoh.co.jp [133.139.60.73]) by lily.toda.ricoh.co.jp (8.9.1/3.7Wlily sendmail.cf v8) with ESMTP id PAA01933; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 15:31:10 +0900 (JST) To: ietf-fax@imc.org Cc: Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it, klensin@jck.com, ned.freed@mrochek.com, paf@cisco.com Subject: [IETF-FAX] Draft letter to ITU-T X-Mailer: Mew version 1.94.2 on Emacs 20.4 / Mule 4.1 (AOI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20020126153418S.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 15:34:18 +0900 (JST) From: Hiroshi Tamura X-Dispatcher: imput version 20000228(IM140) Lines: 115 Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Folks, The draft letter is below. ITU-T meeting starts on Feb 5. I have to send it to the rapporteur by the end of next week. If there are comments, please do soon. If possible, I would like to collect them by Jan 30(GMT) and circulate the final one on Jan 31. Sorry for the tight deadline. Please note that there is one paragraph in which John, Ned and Patrik already confirmed the content with regard to IPR issue. It starts with "The IAB does not make ---". Regards, -- Hiroshi Tamura, Co-chair of IETF-FAX WG E-mail: tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp --------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE: Communication from IETF FAX Working Group CONTACT: Hiroshi Tamura (Co-chair of IETF FAX WG) Tel: +81-46-228-1743 Ricoh Co., Ltd. Fax: +81-46-228-7500 2446 Toda, Atsugi, Kanagawa, 243-0023, JAPAN E-mail: tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp APPROVED BY: FAX Working Group with Claudio Allocchio (Co-chair of IETF FAX WG) -------- This letter is to nofity the current status of IETF FAX Working Group, with regard to TIFF-FX, Implementers Guide and Terminal Mode that ITU-T commented in the communication of SG16 meeting in June 2001. 1 TIFF-FX Fax WG has been trying to move it to Draft Standard for long years. Last year there were IPR and compatiblity issues that our group had to solve before that. 1.1 IPR The IPR issue was claimed by Adobe (TIFF holder) about TIFF itself. Adobe was one of the contributors of TIFF-FX, but changed the stance for the use of TIFF. Fax WG and IESG (Internet Engineering Steering Group - managing WGs) asked IAB (Internet Architecture Board - IETF's oversight body) for consultation. At the Dec. 2001 IETF meeting, IAB, ISEG and WG reached the consensus that Adobe's claims were regard as inconsistent with the mailing lists records. FAX WG agreed to the Draft Stadard process, as usual. The IAB does not make formal decisions about IPR issues. As a matter of fact, it appears clear that Adobe authorized the uses in TIFF-FX, and lately sent out communication which might either mean they changed their mind about the previous authorization, or now they intend to restrict these uses all along. In any case, the timing of their latter actions appears to be against the common practice of reasonable people, and violating both the letter of RFC 2026 and what are normally considered good industry practices. The IETF believes that one cannot violate a patent, or, in general, licensing provisions, by standardizing a technology, but eventually only by using that technology. The IETF FAX WG concluded that TIFF-FX technologies have been implemented and deployed without effective interference from Adobe, and thus there is no bar, under IETF procedures, to moving the specification to Draft Standard status. Regarding the IPR issue, the Application Area Directors (members of IESG: Ned Freed and Patrik Faltstrom), in agreement with the IETF FAX WG, have also declared in the above paragraph. 1.2 Compatibility The other issue is compatibility one for the use of image/tiff MIME content type for Profile J (JBIG), C (Color), L (JBIG color) and M (MRC) for some TIFF readers. Therefore, our group has decided to use two MIME content-types, the current image/tiff for Profile S (MH) and F (MR, MMR) and a new image/tiff-fx content-type for other Profiles, when transported by MIME. The internet-draft "draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-reg-01.txt" describes the new content-type and the registration. Also, there are two internet-drafts: draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-11.txt (TIFF-FX specification itself) and draft-ietf-fax-tiff-regbis-04.txt (TIFF registration). The IETF December meeting agreed that the target date for TIFF-FX to be approved as Draft Standard is September 2002. FAX WG is now trying to move the process. Fax WG understands that T.37 refer some related RFCs. Therefore, after the new documents are approved, our group will submit it to ITU-T. 2 Implementers Guide The internet-draft was already approved by IESG and was in RFC-editors' queue (i.e. waiting for publication) before December meeting. But, as the above, our group has decided to use the two content-types for the file format. As the result, our group agreed that the use of content-types should also be described in the guide. Now, there is a updated internet-draft "draft-ietf-fax-implementers-guide-08.txt", which includes the description and refer "draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-reg-01.txt". The guide is still in RFC-editors' queue. The RFC number will be assigned along with "draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-reg-01.txt". FAX WG understands that T.37 appendix will refer the Implementers Guide. After the RFC number is assigned, our group will submit it to ITU-T. 3 Terminal Mode There are several internet-drafts that relate to Terminal Mode. But, unfortunately, there were no discussion for long months. As a IETF general rule, with few support, it cannot be standarized. Therefore, FAX WG dropped the discussion and removed it in our milestone. From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Sat Jan 26 02:21:58 2002 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA03226 for ; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 02:21:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g0Q6ro503878 for ietf-fax-bks; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 22:53:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.notes.ricoh.co.jp (mail3.notes.ricoh.co.jp [202.211.49.20]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g0Q6rm303874 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 22:53:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from delsol.isd.ricoh.co.jp (IDENT:mirapoint@delsol [133.139.250.75]) by mail.notes.ricoh.co.jp (8.9.3+3.2W/3.7W) id PAA12766; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 15:42:59 +0900 (JST) Received: from lily.toda.ricoh.co.jp (lily.toda.ricoh.co.jp [133.139.60.72]) by delsol.isd.ricoh.co.jp (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id ACI76840; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 15:42:58 +0900 (JST) Received: from localhost (maple.toda.ricoh.co.jp [133.139.60.73]) by lily.toda.ricoh.co.jp (8.9.1/3.7Wlily sendmail.cf v8) with ESMTP id PAA01938; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 15:40:53 +0900 (JST) To: hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com Cc: Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it, ietf-fax@imc.org, Lloyd.McIntyre@pahv.xerox.com Subject: RE: No description for image/tiff in Impl-Guide In-Reply-To: <918C79AB552BD211A2BD00805F15CE850635E084@x-crt-es-ms1.cp10.es.xerox.com> References: <918C79AB552BD211A2BD00805F15CE850635E084@x-crt-es-ms1.cp10.es.xerox.com> X-Mailer: Mew version 1.94.2 on Emacs 20.4 / Mule 4.1 (AOI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20020126154402T.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 15:44:02 +0900 (JST) From: Hiroshi Tamura X-Dispatcher: imput version 20000228(IM140) Lines: 24 Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Tom, > As I understand it the 'Implementers Guide for Facsimile Using Internet > Mail' was approved by the IESG > for publication as an Informational RFC on November 15, 2001. So are we > talking about an update of that document, i.e., another RFC that would > Obsolete the first one? Or if the Editor's queue is long, perhaps the > updated document will be approved by the IESG for publication before the > first one is assigned an RFC number? This is the peculiar process, if my understanding is right. The exception. Though I was not at our SLC meeting, our group agreed to check all the related RFCs and I-Ds for TIFF-FX at the meeting. In the meantime, we agreed in ML that the use of image/tiff and image/tiff-fx should be written in the guide. Anyway, it will be assigned an RFC number along with the tiff-fx-reg I-D under WG last call. -- Hiroshi Tamura, Ricoh Company, LTD. E-mail: tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Sat Jan 26 02:35:32 2002 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA03375 for ; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 02:35:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g0Q77qN05484 for ietf-fax-bks; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 23:07:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.notes.ricoh.co.jp (mail3.notes.ricoh.co.jp [202.211.49.20]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g0Q77n305475 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 23:07:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from azteca.isd.ricoh.co.jp (IDENT:mirapoint@azteca [133.139.250.74]) by mail.notes.ricoh.co.jp (8.9.3+3.2W/3.7W) id QAA13452 for ; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 16:00:23 +0900 (JST) Received: from lily.toda.ricoh.co.jp (lily.toda.ricoh.co.jp [133.139.60.72]) by azteca.isd.ricoh.co.jp (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id ACC29455; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 16:00:22 +0900 (JST) Received: from localhost (maple.toda.ricoh.co.jp [133.139.60.73]) by lily.toda.ricoh.co.jp (8.9.1/3.7Wlily sendmail.cf v8) with ESMTP id PAA01946 for ; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 15:58:18 +0900 (JST) To: ietf-fax@imc.org Subject: For Minneapolis meeting X-Mailer: Mew version 1.94.2 on Emacs 20.4 / Mule 4.1 (AOI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20020126160126W.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 16:01:26 +0900 (JST) From: Hiroshi Tamura X-Dispatcher: imput version 20000228(IM140) Lines: 19 Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Folks, Please remember the following date for Minnepolis meeting. January 10 - Working Group and BOF scheduling begins January 21 - Registration opens February 22 - Internet Draft Cut-off for initial document (-00) submission at 17:00 ET February 22 - Working Group and BOF scheduling closes at 17:00 ET March 1 - Internet Draft final submission cut-off at 17:00 ET March 8 - Pre-registration and Pre-payment cut-off at 12:00 noon ET March 13 - Cancellation request cut-off at 17:00 ET March 13 - Working Group agendas due at 12:00 noon ET March 17-22, 2002 - 53rd IETF Meeting in Minneapolis, MN April 15 - Proceedings submission cutoff by 17:00 ET * All times are in US Eastern Time -- Hiroshi Tamura, co-chair of fax wg E-mail: tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Sat Jan 26 07:03:59 2002 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA05708 for ; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 07:03:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g0QBUBM09683 for ietf-fax-bks; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 03:30:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from cisco.com (nordic.cisco.com [64.103.48.45]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g0QBU9309674 for ; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 03:30:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.5] (ssh-ams1.cisco.com [144.254.74.55]) by cisco.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA24524; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 12:29:26 +0100 (MET) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 11:09:56 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= To: Hiroshi Tamura , ietf-fax@imc.org cc: Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it, klensin@jck.com, ned.freed@mrochek.com Subject: Re: [IETF-FAX] Draft letter to ITU-T Message-ID: <14762314.1012043396@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20020126153418S.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> References: <20020126153418S.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.1.2 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ok. paf --On 2002-01-26 15.34 +0900 Hiroshi Tamura wrote: > Folks, > > The draft letter is below. ITU-T meeting starts on Feb 5. > I have to send it to the rapporteur by the end of next week. > If there are comments, please do soon. If possible, I would like to > collect them by Jan 30(GMT) and circulate the final one on Jan 31. > Sorry for the tight deadline. > > Please note that there is one paragraph in which John, Ned and Patrik > already confirmed the content with regard to IPR issue. > It starts with "The IAB does not make ---". > > Regards, > -- > Hiroshi Tamura, Co-chair of IETF-FAX WG > E-mail: tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > TITLE: Communication from IETF FAX Working Group > > CONTACT: > Hiroshi Tamura (Co-chair of IETF FAX WG) Tel: +81-46-228-1743 > Ricoh Co., Ltd. Fax: +81-46-228-7500 > 2446 Toda, Atsugi, Kanagawa, 243-0023, JAPAN E-mail: > tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp > > APPROVED BY: > FAX Working Group with Claudio Allocchio (Co-chair of IETF FAX WG) > > > -------- > > This letter is to nofity the current status of IETF FAX Working Group, > with regard to TIFF-FX, Implementers Guide and Terminal Mode that ITU-T > commented in the communication of SG16 meeting in June 2001. > > 1 TIFF-FX > > Fax WG has been trying to move it to Draft Standard for long years. > Last year there were IPR and compatiblity issues that our group > had to solve before that. > > 1.1 IPR > The IPR issue was claimed by Adobe (TIFF holder) about TIFF itself. > Adobe was one of the contributors of TIFF-FX, but changed the stance > for the use of TIFF. Fax WG and IESG (Internet Engineering Steering > Group - managing WGs) asked IAB (Internet Architecture Board - > IETF's oversight body) for consultation. > > At the Dec. 2001 IETF meeting, IAB, ISEG and WG reached the consensus > that Adobe's claims were regard as inconsistent with the mailing lists > records. FAX WG agreed to the Draft Stadard process, as usual. > > The IAB does not make formal decisions about IPR issues. As a matter > of fact, it appears clear that Adobe authorized the uses in TIFF-FX, > and lately sent out communication which might either mean they changed > their mind about the previous authorization, or now they intend to > restrict these uses all along. In any case, the timing of their latter > actions appears to be against the common practice of reasonable people, > and violating both the letter of RFC 2026 and what are normally > considered good industry practices. The IETF believes that one cannot > violate a patent, or, in general, licensing provisions, by standardizing > a technology, but eventually only by using that technology. The IETF FAX > WG concluded that TIFF-FX technologies have been implemented and deployed > without effective interference from Adobe, and thus there is no bar, > under IETF procedures, to moving the specification to Draft Standard > status. > > Regarding the IPR issue, the Application Area Directors (members of IESG: > Ned Freed and Patrik Faltstrom), in agreement with the IETF FAX WG, > have also declared in the above paragraph. > > 1.2 Compatibility > The other issue is compatibility one for the use of image/tiff MIME > content type for Profile J (JBIG), C (Color), L (JBIG color) and M (MRC) > for some TIFF readers. Therefore, our group has decided to use two MIME > content-types, the current image/tiff for Profile S (MH) and F (MR, MMR) > and a new image/tiff-fx content-type for other Profiles, > when transported by MIME. > > The internet-draft "draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-reg-01.txt" describes the > new content-type and the registration. Also, there are two > internet-drafts: draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-11.txt (TIFF-FX specification > itself) and > draft-ietf-fax-tiff-regbis-04.txt (TIFF registration). > > The IETF December meeting agreed that the target date for TIFF-FX to be > approved as Draft Standard is September 2002. FAX WG is now trying to > move the process. > > Fax WG understands that T.37 refer some related RFCs. Therefore, > after the new documents are approved, our group will submit it to ITU-T. > > > 2 Implementers Guide > > The internet-draft was already approved by IESG and was in RFC-editors' > queue (i.e. waiting for publication) before December meeting. > But, as the above, our group has decided to use the two content-types > for the file format. As the result, our group agreed that the use of > content-types should also be described in the guide. Now, there is > a updated internet-draft "draft-ietf-fax-implementers-guide-08.txt", > which includes the description and refer > "draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-reg-01.txt". > > The guide is still in RFC-editors' queue. The RFC number will be > assigned along with "draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-reg-01.txt". > > FAX WG understands that T.37 appendix will refer the Implementers Guide. > After the RFC number is assigned, our group will submit it to ITU-T. > > > 3 Terminal Mode > > There are several internet-drafts that relate to Terminal Mode. > But, unfortunately, there were no discussion for long months. > As a IETF general rule, with few support, it cannot be standarized. > Therefore, FAX WG dropped the discussion and removed it in our milestone. > From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Sun Jan 27 18:13:04 2002 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA04518 for ; Sun, 27 Jan 2002 18:13:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g0RMa8W07701 for ietf-fax-bks; Sun, 27 Jan 2002 14:36:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from 21cn.com ([61.140.60.248]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with SMTP id g0RMa5307696 for ; Sun, 27 Jan 2002 14:36:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from 21cn.com([10.2.1.1]) by 21cn.com(AIMC 2.9.5.2) with SMTP id jm93c54cbdf; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 06:35:04 +0800 Received: from above.proper.com([208.184.76.39]) by 21cn.com(AIMC 2.9.5.2) with SMTP id jm13c4fbe5b; Thr, 24 Jan 2002 12:33:38 +0800 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g0MIckm28069 for ietf-fax-bks; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 10:38:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from ariel.eastgw.xerox.com (ariel.xerox.com [208.140.33.25]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g0MIci328065 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 10:38:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from godzilla.ADOC.xerox.com (godzilla.ADOC.xerox.com [13.242.128.10]) by ariel.eastgw.xerox.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA28448; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 13:38:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from mercury.adoc.xerox.com (mercury [13.242.100.20]) by godzilla.ADOC.xerox.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8/ADOC-HUB-1.7) with ESMTP id KAA23901; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 10:38:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by mercury.ADOC.xerox.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2654.89) id ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 10:38:30 -0800 Message-ID: <51B8ABCE456FD111899900805F6FD6EE0D91245F@mercury.ADOC.xerox.com> From: "McIntyre, Lloyd" To: "'Hiroshi Tamura'" , ietf-fax@imc.org Cc: Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it, ned.freed@mrochek.com Subject: RE: FAX WG status Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 10:38:30 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2654.89) Content-Type: text/plain List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Tamura-san, Please see my response below. Regards, Lloyd > 8 TIFF-FX extension (draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-extension-1-01.txt) > (darft-mcintyre-feature-schema-extension1-00.txt) > > Until the TIFF-FX itself is solved, there is no action. Based upon the section 8 entry, "- TIFF-FX extension on hold until relevant new documents are at a stable state. Maybe February 2002.", there may be less potential for misunderstanding if this were stated as - no action until relevant documents have obtained a level of stability. > > 11 TIFF-FX (draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-11.txt) > > The difference is the description about the use of two content-types: > image/tiff and image/tiff-fx. There are no problems. > We should do WG Last Call as recycle ***Proposed Standard*** at first, > according to the result of the SLC meeting. > This is not correct. Ned, our AD, has accepted an action to obtain IESG clarification as to whether it is necessary to recycle TIFF-FX to Proposed Standard. A case may be made that it is NOT necessary to recycle to Proposed Standard (i.e. retain in current state of pending Last Call for Draft Standard) since there were no file format features (i.e. encoding features) added to TIFF-FX. Ned - what is the status with regard to IESG evaluation of the case? It is essential that we obtain IESG clarification very soon, given the January milestone for WG Last Call towards Proposed Standard and March milestone for approval of Proposed Standard, which is essential if a September milestone for approval of Draft Standard is to be realized. > > > 13 TIFF-FX registration (draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-reg-01.txt) > > It seems that there are no problems. We can do WG last call as BCP. > Claudio or I will do it soon. > Also, the interoperability test will be necessary for Draft Standard. This is basically correct, however, the last call should be for Proposed Standard. WG Last Call should be issued very soon, given the mid-January milestone. > > 14 Impl. Guide (draft-ietf-fax-implementers-guide.08.txt) > > The content-type issue is reflected in it. The IETF Last Call > is finished. > But, there is only one reference issue on > draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-reg-01.txt. > So, I think the two I-D should be published at the same time,,,. > Is it true? I agree, with one small clarification. Maybe more appropriate to say something like - the two I-Ds should be approved at the same time,,,. > > ......... > > BTW, Minneapolis meeting is coming. I think it is better > to have our meeting for the status confirmation, > although there are few things to discuss. > Given the milestones below, I believe there will be a lot to discuss with regard to TIFF-FX and image/tiff-fx registration progression to Draft Standard. At the March 2002 IETF meeting - to have image/tiff published as BCP - to have image/tiff-fx published as Proposed Standard - to have the test report available Mid June 2002 - issue the WG last call for image/tiff-fx registration and tiff-fx file format specification as Draft Standards July 2002 IETF meeting - issue IESG last call for image/tiff-fx registration and tiff-fx file format specification as Draft Standard Mid September 2002 - to have image/tiff-fx registration and tiff-fx file format specification approved by IESG as Draft Standards From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Wed Jan 30 18:26:14 2002 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA04731 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 18:26:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g0UMr1912993 for ietf-fax-bks; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 14:53:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail3.notes.ricoh.co.jp (mail3.notes.ricoh.co.jp [202.211.49.20]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g0UMqw312987 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 14:52:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from delsol.isd.ricoh.co.jp (IDENT:mirapoint@delsol [133.139.250.75]) by mail3.notes.ricoh.co.jp (8.9.3+3.2W/3.7W) id HAA20882 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 07:46:00 +0900 (JST) Received: from lily.toda.ricoh.co.jp (lily.toda.ricoh.co.jp [133.139.60.72]) by delsol.isd.ricoh.co.jp (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id ACJ72396; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 07:45:59 +0900 (JST) Received: from localhost (maple.toda.ricoh.co.jp [133.139.60.73]) by lily.toda.ricoh.co.jp (8.9.1/3.7Wlily sendmail.cf v8) with ESMTP id HAA02181 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 07:43:51 +0900 (JST) To: ietf-fax@imc.org Subject: Draft Schedule in Minneapolis X-Mailer: Mew version 1.94.2 on Emacs 20.4 / Mule 4.1 (AOI) References: <200201301610.LAA23662@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20020131074709W.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 07:47:09 +0900 (JST) From: Hiroshi Tamura X-Dispatcher: imput version 20000228(IM140) Lines: 19 Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Folks, > Please find below the DRAFT Agenda of the 53rd IETF Meeting > which we're planning to post on the web site tomorrow. > Be noticed that this Draft Agenda is subject to change until the scheduling closes > on Friday, February 22 at 17:00 ET. > MONDAY, March 18, 2002 > 1530-1730 Afternoon Sessions II > APP fax Internet Fax WG Please note, as the above says, it is subject to change. -- Hiroshi Tamura, Co-chair of IETF-FAX WG E-mail: tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Wed Jan 30 19:45:26 2002 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA05524 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 19:45:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g0V0HIu14905 for ietf-fax-bks; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 16:17:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail3.notes.ricoh.co.jp (mail3.notes.ricoh.co.jp [202.211.49.20]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g0V0HG314900 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 16:17:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from azteca.isd.ricoh.co.jp (IDENT:mirapoint@azteca [133.139.250.74]) by mail3.notes.ricoh.co.jp (8.9.3+3.2W/3.7W) id JAA00872; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 09:17:17 +0900 (JST) Received: from lily.toda.ricoh.co.jp (lily.toda.ricoh.co.jp [133.139.60.72]) by azteca.isd.ricoh.co.jp (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id ACD58018; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 09:17:09 +0900 (JST) Received: from localhost (maple.toda.ricoh.co.jp [133.139.60.73]) by lily.toda.ricoh.co.jp (8.9.1/3.7Wlily sendmail.cf v8) with ESMTP id JAA02186; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 09:15:08 +0900 (JST) To: ietf-fax@imc.org Cc: Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it, klensin@jck.com, ned.freed@mrochek.com, paf@cisco.com Subject: Re: [IETF-FAX] Draft letter to ITU-T In-Reply-To: <20020126153418S.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> References: <20020126153418S.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> <000101c1a96a$5bf1b800$0b78bfd1@larrypad> X-Mailer: Mew version 1.94.2 on Emacs 20.4 / Mule 4.1 (AOI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20020131091827U.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 09:18:27 +0900 (JST) From: Hiroshi Tamura X-Dispatcher: imput version 20000228(IM140) Lines: 117 Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To all: There were no comments in our ML. But, in fact, there was a request to modify about the IPR issue. Normally, we cannot do anything unless he/she says in ML. But, there was something to consider and this issue is the critical issue for the people concerned. Thus, I accepted some points. It may not be fair, but, please understand the situation. I'm sorry that it is not well-managed. I also changed in the last paragraph regarding T.37 in TIFF-FX. Also, it is impossible to prepare the letter which all our members can agree to. Please accept the new version below, if there are not apparently wrong descriptions. Also, I would like to say to thank Patrik and Claudio for their help. Regards, -- Hiroshi Tamura, Co-chair of IETF-FAX WG E-mail: tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp --------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE: Communication from IETF FAX Working Group CONTACT: Hiroshi Tamura (Co-chair of IETF FAX WG) Tel: +81-46-228-1743 Ricoh Co., Ltd. Fax: +81-46-228-7500 2446 Toda, Atsugi, Kanagawa, 243-0023, JAPAN E-mail: tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp APPROVED BY: FAX Working Group with Claudio Allocchio (Co-chair of IETF FAX WG) -------- This letter is to nofity the current status of IETF FAX Working Group, with regard to TIFF-FX, Implementers Guide and Terminal Mode that ITU-T commented in the communication of SG16 meeting in June 2001. 1 TIFF-FX Fax WG has been trying to move it to Draft Standard for long years. Last year there were IPR and compatiblity issues that our group had to solve before that. 1.1 IPR The IPR issue was claimed by Adobe (TIFF holder) about TIFF itself. Adobe was one of the contributors of TIFF-FX, but changed the stance for the use of TIFF. Fax WG and IESG (Internet Engineering Steering Group - managing WGs) asked IAB (Internet Architecture Board - IETF's oversight body) for consultation. At the Dec. 2001 IETF meeting, IAB, ISEG and WG reached the consensus that Adobe's claims were regard as inconsistent with the records of the IETF meetings and the mailing lists of the WG. FAX WG agreed to the Draft Stadard process, as usual. As a matter of policy, the IESG does not evaluate IPR claims. There was some confusion about the nature of the claims and how to deal with the situation. The IESG and IAB consulted about this, and based on their evaluation of the situation, encouraged FAX WG to continue progressing the documents and submit them for appropriate consideration to the IESG as soon as they appear to be ready, without delay due to IPR claims around TIFF. 1.2 Compatibility The other issue is compatibility one for the use of image/tiff MIME content type for Profile J (JBIG), C (Color), L (JBIG color) and M (MRC) for some TIFF readers. Therefore, our group has decided to use two MIME content-types, the current image/tiff for Profile S (MH) and F (MR, MMR) and a new image/tiff-fx content-type for other Profiles, when transported by MIME. The internet-draft "draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-reg-01.txt" describes the new content-type and the registration. Also, there are two internet-drafts: draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-11.txt (TIFF-FX specification itself) and draft-ietf-fax-tiff-regbis-04.txt (TIFF registration). The IETF December meeting agreed that the target date for TIFF-FX to be approved as Draft Standard is September 2002. FAX WG is now trying to move the process. Fax WG understands that T.37 refer some related RFCs and there are some concerns about them. Fax WG, along with IESG and IAB, are now trying to resolve those issues. Our group believes that the status of T.37 is not changed. But, the reference should be changed after the new RFC documents are approved. At that time, Fax WG will submit them to ITU-T. 2 Implementers Guide The internet-draft was already approved by IESG and was in RFC-editors' queue (i.e. waiting for publication) before December meeting. But, as the above, our group has decided to use the two content-types for the file format. As the result, our group agreed that the use of content-types should also be described in the guide. Now, there is a updated internet-draft "draft-ietf-fax-implementers-guide-08.txt", which includes the description and refer "draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-reg-01.txt". The guide is still in RFC-editors' queue. The RFC number will be assigned along with "draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-reg-01.txt". FAX WG understands that T.37 appendix will refer the Implementers Guide. After the RFC number is assigned, our group will submit it to ITU-T. 3 Terminal Mode There are several internet-drafts that relate to Terminal Mode. But, unfortunately, there were no discussion for long months. As a IETF general rule, with few support, it cannot be standarized. Therefore, FAX WG dropped the discussion and removed it in our milestone. From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Wed Jan 30 20:29:16 2002 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA05928 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 20:29:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g0V10vA15813 for ietf-fax-bks; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 17:00:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from sj-msg-core-1.cisco.com (sj-msg-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.163.11]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g0V10v315809 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 17:00:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from mira-sjcm-3.cisco.com (mira-sjcm-3.cisco.com [171.69.24.15]) by sj-msg-core-1.cisco.com (8.11.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id g0V10BG03431; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 17:00:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from DWINGW2K (dhcp-128-107-139-147.cisco.com [128.107.139.147]) by mira-sjcm-3.cisco.com (Mirapoint) with SMTP id ADM09470; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 16:49:04 -0800 (PST) From: "Dan Wing" To: "Hiroshi Tamura" , Cc: , , , Subject: RE: [IETF-FAX] Draft letter to ITU-T Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 17:00:06 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <20020131091827U.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hiroshi, Is the letter below expected to resolve the problem obliquely described as "ITU-T T.37 distribution was suspended pending Copyright aspects resolution" at http://www.itu.int/rec/recommendation.asp?type=folders&lang=e&parent=T-REC-T. 37 ? Or is an additional copyright issue with T.37 or the referenced documents, beyond the IPR in the letter below? -d > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org [mailto:owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org]On > Behalf Of Hiroshi Tamura > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 4:18 PM > To: ietf-fax@imc.org > Cc: Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it; klensin@jck.com; ned.freed@mrochek.com; > paf@cisco.com > Subject: Re: [IETF-FAX] Draft letter to ITU-T > > > > To all: > > There were no comments in our ML. But, in fact, there was a request > to modify about the IPR issue. Normally, we cannot do anything > unless he/she says in ML. But, there was something to consider and > this issue is the critical issue for the people concerned. > Thus, I accepted some points. > > It may not be fair, but, please understand the situation. > I'm sorry that it is not well-managed. > > I also changed in the last paragraph regarding T.37 in TIFF-FX. > > Also, it is impossible to prepare the letter which all our members > can agree to. Please accept the new version below, > if there are not apparently wrong descriptions. > > Also, I would like to say to thank Patrik and Claudio for their help. > > Regards, > -- > Hiroshi Tamura, Co-chair of IETF-FAX WG > E-mail: tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > TITLE: Communication from IETF FAX Working Group > > CONTACT: > Hiroshi Tamura (Co-chair of IETF FAX WG) Tel: +81-46-228-1743 > Ricoh Co., Ltd. Fax: > +81-46-228-7500 > 2446 Toda, Atsugi, Kanagawa, 243-0023, JAPAN E-mail: > tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp > > APPROVED BY: > FAX Working Group with Claudio Allocchio (Co-chair of IETF FAX WG) > > > -------- > > This letter is to nofity the current status of IETF FAX Working Group, > with regard to TIFF-FX, Implementers Guide and Terminal Mode that ITU-T > commented in the communication of SG16 meeting in June 2001. > > 1 TIFF-FX > > Fax WG has been trying to move it to Draft Standard for long years. > Last year there were IPR and compatiblity issues that our group > had to solve before that. > > 1.1 IPR > The IPR issue was claimed by Adobe (TIFF holder) about TIFF itself. > Adobe was one of the contributors of TIFF-FX, but changed the stance > for the use of TIFF. Fax WG and IESG (Internet Engineering Steering > Group - managing WGs) asked IAB (Internet Architecture Board - > IETF's oversight body) for consultation. > > At the Dec. 2001 IETF meeting, IAB, ISEG and WG reached the consensus > that Adobe's claims were regard as inconsistent with the records of > the IETF meetings and the mailing lists of the WG. > FAX WG agreed to the Draft Stadard process, as usual. > > As a matter of policy, the IESG does not evaluate IPR claims. > There was some confusion about the nature of the claims and how > to deal with the situation. The IESG and IAB consulted about this, > and based on their evaluation of the situation, encouraged FAX WG > to continue progressing the documents and submit them for appropriate > consideration to the IESG as soon as they appear to be ready, > without delay due to IPR claims around TIFF. > > 1.2 Compatibility > The other issue is compatibility one for the use of image/tiff MIME > content type for Profile J (JBIG), C (Color), L (JBIG color) and M (MRC) > for some TIFF readers. Therefore, our group has decided to use two MIME > content-types, the current image/tiff for Profile S (MH) and F (MR, MMR) > and a new image/tiff-fx content-type for other Profiles, > when transported by MIME. > > The internet-draft "draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-reg-01.txt" describes the > new content-type and the registration. Also, there are two internet-drafts: > draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-11.txt (TIFF-FX specification itself) and > draft-ietf-fax-tiff-regbis-04.txt (TIFF registration). > > The IETF December meeting agreed that the target date for TIFF-FX > to be approved > as Draft Standard is September 2002. FAX WG is now trying to move > the process. > > Fax WG understands that T.37 refer some related RFCs and there are > some concerns about them. Fax WG, along with IESG and IAB, are now trying > to resolve those issues. Our group believes that the status of T.37 is not > changed. But, the reference should be changed after the new RFC documents > are approved. At that time, Fax WG will submit them to ITU-T. > > > 2 Implementers Guide > > The internet-draft was already approved by IESG and was in RFC-editors' > queue (i.e. waiting for publication) before December meeting. > But, as the above, our group has decided to use the two content-types > for the file format. As the result, our group agreed that the use of > content-types should also be described in the guide. Now, there is > a updated internet-draft "draft-ietf-fax-implementers-guide-08.txt", > which includes the description and refer > "draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-reg-01.txt". > > The guide is still in RFC-editors' queue. The RFC number will be > assigned along with "draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-reg-01.txt". > > FAX WG understands that T.37 appendix will refer the Implementers Guide. > After the RFC number is assigned, our group will submit it to ITU-T. > > > 3 Terminal Mode > > There are several internet-drafts that relate to Terminal Mode. > But, unfortunately, there were no discussion for long months. > As a IETF general rule, with few support, it cannot be standarized. > Therefore, FAX WG dropped the discussion and removed it in our milestone. > From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Wed Jan 30 21:06:59 2002 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA06341 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 21:06:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g0V1cM817786 for ietf-fax-bks; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 17:38:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail3.notes.ricoh.co.jp (mail3.notes.ricoh.co.jp [202.211.49.20]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g0V1cK317779 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 17:38:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from azteca.isd.ricoh.co.jp (IDENT:mirapoint@azteca [133.139.250.74]) by mail3.notes.ricoh.co.jp (8.9.3+3.2W/3.7W) id KAA18500; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 10:38:04 +0900 (JST) Received: from lily.toda.ricoh.co.jp (lily.toda.ricoh.co.jp [133.139.60.72]) by azteca.isd.ricoh.co.jp (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id ACD60228; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 10:37:55 +0900 (JST) Received: from localhost (maple.toda.ricoh.co.jp [133.139.60.73]) by lily.toda.ricoh.co.jp (8.9.1/3.7Wlily sendmail.cf v8) with ESMTP id KAA02193; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 10:35:54 +0900 (JST) To: dwing@cisco.com Cc: ietf-fax@imc.org, Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it, klensin@jck.com, ned.freed@mrochek.com, paf@cisco.com Subject: RE: [IETF-FAX] Draft letter to ITU-T In-Reply-To: References: <20020131091827U.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> X-Mailer: Mew version 1.94.2 on Emacs 20.4 / Mule 4.1 (AOI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20020131103913X.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 10:39:13 +0900 (JST) From: Hiroshi Tamura X-Dispatcher: imput version 20000228(IM140) Lines: 47 Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dan, Thanks for your information. > Is the letter below expected to resolve the problem obliquely described as > > "ITU-T T.37 distribution was suspended pending Copyright aspects > resolution" > > at > > > http://www.itu.int/rec/recommendation.asp?type=folders&lang=e&parent=T-REC-T. > 37 > > ? I did not know that the distribution was suspended. I hope the letter will help it. But, it may not be enough. I hear John is now trying for all the related issue. (Thanks.) After that, we should let ITU-T know the result again. In the last paragraph of TIFF-FX, I change to: Unfortunately, the T.37 distribution is suspended in the ITU-T web-site. Fax WG understands that T.37 refer some related RFCs and there are some concerns about them. Fax WG, along with IESG and IAB, are now trying to resolve those issues. Our group believes that the status of T.37 is not changed. Anyway, Fax WG will let ITU-T know the final result. Also, the reference should be changed after the new RFC documents are approved. At that time, our group will submit them to ITU-T. > Or is an additional copyright issue with T.37 or the referenced documents, > beyond the IPR in the letter below? No. Anyway, thanks, Dan. Regards, -- Hiroshi Tamura, Co-chair of IETF-FAX WG E-mail: tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Thu Jan 31 12:55:59 2002 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA05639 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 12:55:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g0VHP5n19615 for ietf-fax-bks; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 09:25:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from lancelot.crf.canon.fr (lancelot.crf.canon.fr [194.2.158.66]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g0VHP3319610 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 09:25:03 -0800 (PST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by lancelot.crf.canon.fr (8.11.4/8.11.4) id g0VHKoY28973 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 18:20:50 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: lancelot.crf.canon.fr: smap set sender to using -f Received: from mercure.crf.canon.fr(intranet.crf.canon.fr 194.2.81.249) by lancelot via smap (V2.0beta) id xma028962; Thu, 31 Jan 02 18:20:22 +0100 Received: from crf.canon.fr ([194.2.81.21]) by mercure.crf.canon.fr (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with ESMTP id GQTCB000.NBP; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 18:23:24 +0100 Message-ID: <3C597D91.63D2A0A6@crf.canon.fr> Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 18:23:29 +0100 From: "MAEDA Toru" Organization: Canon Research Centre France X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [ja] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: ja MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hiroshi Tamura CC: dwing@cisco.com, ietf-fax@imc.org, Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it, klensin@jck.com, ned.freed@mrochek.com, paf@cisco.com Subject: Re: [IETF-FAX] Draft letter to ITU-T References: <20020131091827U.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> <20020131103913X.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, All. I put comments in below as the editor of ITU-T T.37. Regards. Toru Maeda Hiroshi Tamura wrote: > > Dan, > > Thanks for your information. > > > Is the letter below expected to resolve the problem obliquely described as > > > > "ITU-T T.37 distribution was suspended pending Copyright aspects > > resolution" > > > > at > > > > > > http://www.itu.int/rec/recommendation.asp?type=folders&lang=e&parent=T-REC-T. > > 37 > > > > ? > > I did not know that the distribution was suspended. > I hope the letter will help it. But, it may not be enough. > > I hear John is now trying for all the related issue. (Thanks.) > After that, we should let ITU-T know the result again. > > In the last paragraph of TIFF-FX, I change to: > > Unfortunately, the T.37 distribution is suspended in the ITU-T web-site. > Fax WG understands that T.37 refer some related RFCs and > there are some concerns about them. Fax WG, along with IESG and IAB, > are now trying to resolve those issues. Our group believes that > the status of T.37 is not changed. > The statement of the status is not clear. Do you mean that T.37 suspended status is not changed? > Anyway, Fax WG will let ITU-T know the final result. Also, the reference > should be changed after the new RFC documents are approved. > At that time, our group will submit them to ITU-T. > After the new RFC documents are approved in IETF, the references in T.37 will be updated based on the IETF communication, then T.37 will be took procedure for concent in ITU-T. > > Or is an additional copyright issue with T.37 or the referenced documents, > > beyond the IPR in the letter below? > > No. > > Anyway, thanks, Dan. > > Regards, > -- > Hiroshi Tamura, Co-chair of IETF-FAX WG > E-mail: tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp -- *********************************** MAEDA TORU Canon Research Centre France S.A. *********************************** From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Thu Jan 31 18:04:48 2002 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA15182 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 18:04:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g0VMail05635 for ietf-fax-bks; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 14:36:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail3.notes.ricoh.co.jp (mail3.notes.ricoh.co.jp [202.211.49.20]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g0VMag305631 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 14:36:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from delsol.isd.ricoh.co.jp (IDENT:mirapoint@delsol [133.139.250.75]) by mail3.notes.ricoh.co.jp (8.9.3+3.2W/3.7W) id HAA25192; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 07:33:13 +0900 (JST) Received: from lily.toda.ricoh.co.jp (lily.toda.ricoh.co.jp [133.139.60.72]) by delsol.isd.ricoh.co.jp (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id ACJ96357; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 07:33:12 +0900 (JST) Received: from localhost (maple.toda.ricoh.co.jp [133.139.60.73]) by lily.toda.ricoh.co.jp (8.9.1/3.7Wlily sendmail.cf v8) with ESMTP id HAA02261; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 07:31:03 +0900 (JST) To: maeda@crf.canon.fr Cc: dwing@cisco.com, ietf-fax@imc.org, Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it, klensin@jck.com, ned.freed@mrochek.com, paf@cisco.com Subject: Re: [IETF-FAX] Draft letter to ITU-T In-Reply-To: <3C597D91.63D2A0A6@crf.canon.fr> References: <20020131103913X.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> <3C597D91.63D2A0A6@crf.canon.fr> X-Mailer: Mew version 1.94.2 on Emacs 20.4 / Mule 4.1 (AOI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20020201073426K.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 07:34:26 +0900 (JST) From: Hiroshi Tamura X-Dispatcher: imput version 20000228(IM140) Lines: 30 Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MAEDA san, Thanks for your comment. > > In the last paragraph of TIFF-FX, I change to: > > > > Unfortunately, the T.37 distribution is suspended in the ITU-T web-site. > > Fax WG understands that T.37 refer some related RFCs and > > there are some concerns about them. Fax WG, along with IESG and IAB, > > are now trying to resolve those issues. Our group believes that > > the status of T.37 is not changed. > > > > The statement of the status is not clear. > Do you mean that T.37 suspended status is not changed? No. Sorry for my confusion. I wanted to say T.37 can continue to be used. I change to: Our group believes that T.37 is valid. Again, thanks. Within a few hours, I will submit to ITU-T. Regards, -- Hiroshi Tamura, Ricoh Company, LTD. E-mail: tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp