From subs-reminder@imc.org Mon Apr 1 18:38:01 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 SAA19045 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 18:38:00 -0500 (EST) From: subs-reminder@imc.org Received: by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g31NbxD05146; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 15:37:59 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 15:37:59 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200204012337.g31NbxD05146@above.proper.com> To: fax-archive@ietf.org Subject: [[737336282]] 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. Feel free to delete this message. On the other hand, if you want to unsubscribe from this list, simply go to the following link: If for some reason you cannot go to that web site, you can also unsubscribe by email; however, doing so is not as likely to get you unsubscribed as the web site is. To unsubscribe using email, you can respond to this message and I will unsubscribe you by hand in the next few days. Again, this is not assured to work because your mail system may make it impossible for me to determine who you are or what you want to unsubscribe to. 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". Again, using the web site above is more likely to work than this method (due to limitations in Majordomo, the mailing list software we currently use). If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. --Paul Hoffman, list administrator From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Wed Apr 3 07:00:34 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 HAA00124 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 07:00:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g33BW8a10827 for ietf-fax-bks; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 03:32:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from kings.mei.co.jp (bulls.mei.co.jp [202.224.189.25]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g33BW7m10823 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 03:32:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by kings.mei.co.jp (8.12.2/3.7W/bulls) with ESMTP id g33BVTvm024227; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 20:31:29 +0900 (JST) Received: by mail.jp.panasonic.com (8.11.6/3.7W/dodgers) with SMTP id g33BVS512522; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 20:31:28 +0900 (JST) Received: from no.name.available by m-bb2.mgcs.mei.co.jp via smtpd (for [157.8.1.150]) with SMTP; 3 Apr 2002 11:31:29 UT Received: from mlsv1.mgcs.mei.co.jp by mlsv0-1.mgcs.mei.co.jp (8.12.2/3.7W-HUB) with ESMTP id g33BUkvh002524; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 20:30:46 +0900 (JST) Received: from mlsv2.rdmg.mgcs.mei.co.jp by mlsv1.mgcs.mei.co.jp (8.9.3/3.7W-MGCS) with ESMTP id UAA23316; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 20:31:28 +0900 (JST) Received: from d23n59.rdmg.mgcs.mei.co.jp by mlsv2.rdmg.mgcs.mei.co.jp (8.12.2/3.7W-RDMG) with SMTP id g33BW5uX000255; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 20:32:05 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <200204031137.AA01030@d23n59.rdmg.mgcs.mei.co.jp> From: "Toyoda, Kiyoshi" Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 20:37:13 +0900 To: Claudio Allocchio Cc: Subject: Re: spell checked minutes In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: AL-Mail32 Version 1.12 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Freed-san, There is a paragraph below in the rough minutes of Minneapolis meeting. Ned confirms that the request for the IETF last Call for - draft-ietf-fax-esmtp-conneg-01.txt - draft-ietf-fax-timely-delivery-05.txt has been sent to the Secretariat, but there are currently more than 30 requests in the queue. But, I can't find "draft-ietf-fax-esmtp-conneg-01.txt" in "IESG Status of Items". Would you check that the draft has been sent to the Secretariat? Regards, Claudio Allocchio wrote: > >And here are the rough minutes after a spell checker... > >:-) > >End of Set > Kiyoshi Toyoda From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Thu Apr 4 00:08:48 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 AAA26175 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 00:08:47 -0500 (EST) Received: by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g344dEq27065 for ietf-fax-bks; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 20:39:14 -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 g344dDm27061 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 20:39:13 -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 XAA04000; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 23:39:01 -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 UAA18216; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 20:38:59 -0800 (PST) Received: by mercury.ADOC.xerox.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2654.89) id ; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 20:38:59 -0800 Message-ID: <51B8ABCE456FD111899900805F6FD6EE0D91277B@mercury.ADOC.xerox.com> From: "McIntyre, Lloyd" To: "'Claudio Allocchio'" , ietf-fax@imc.org Subject: RE: spell checked minutes Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 20:38:58 -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: Claudio, Please excuse my late comments, as I was out of the office. The status of - draft-ietf-fax-service-v2-05.txt 4th paragraph, last sentence "It is thus strongly suggested to the editors and the WG to make any possible additional effort to clarify these points, eventually providing some new interoperability testing, within a clear framework." should be truncated at the comma (,) to read "It is thus strongly suggested to the editors and the WG to make any possible additional effort to clarify these points." It is my understanding that Ned did NOT require new TIFF-FX interoperability testing. I believe his instructions were more consistent with taking whatever actions necessary to insure satisfaction of the interoperability requirements. 5th paragraph, 4th sentence "A discussion follows, without a clear conclusion, but with the suggestion that the WG considers valid to test single features, but suggests that these features will be then tested also by the products conformant to Internet Fax specifications." should be clarified after the comma (,) to read "A discussion follows, without a clear conclusion, but with the suggestion that the WG considers valid to test single features, and that at some future date these features will also be tested by products conformant to Internet Fax specifications (e.g. as in testing of RFC 2532 "Extended Facsimile Using Internet Mail" or ffpim)." 5th paragraph, 5th sentence "The specific MIME type image/tiff-fx test procedure is the accepted (with the above observation)." should be clarified to read "The specific MIME type image/tiff-fx test procedure outlined in the test plan was accepted (with the above observation)." Thanks, Lloyd > -----Original Message----- > From: Claudio Allocchio [mailto:claudio@garr.it] > Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 12:31 PM > To: ietf-fax@imc.org > Subject: spell checked minutes > > > > And here are the rough minutes after a spell checker... > > :-) > > End of Set > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------------- > Claudio Allocchio G A R R > Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it > Project Technical Officer > tel: +39 040 3758523 Italian Academic and > G=Claudio; S=Allocchio; > fax: +39 040 3758565 Research Network P=garr; > A=garr; C=it; > > PGP Key: > http://security.fi.infn.it/cgi-bin/spgpk.pl?KeyId=0C5C2A09 > From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Thu Apr 4 20:04:32 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 UAA14402 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 20:04:32 -0500 (EST) Received: by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g350Z6518098 for ietf-fax-bks; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 16:35:06 -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 g350Z3m18094 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 16:35:03 -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 JAA03548; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 09:28:09 +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 ACN41509; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 09:28:08 +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 JAA08842; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 09:24:55 +0900 (JST) To: Lloyd.McIntyre@pahv.xerox.com Cc: claudio@garr.it, ietf-fax@imc.org Subject: RE: spell checked minutes In-Reply-To: <51B8ABCE456FD111899900805F6FD6EE0D91277B@mercury.ADOC.xerox.com> References: <51B8ABCE456FD111899900805F6FD6EE0D91277B@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: <20020405092808O.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 09:28:08 +0900 (JST) From: Hiroshi Tamura X-Dispatcher: imput version 20000228(IM140) Lines: 43 Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lloyd, Thanks for your comment. > Please excuse my late comments, as I was out of the office. Not so late, in fact. I will write our formal minutes, from now on, based on Claudio's minutes. I will add something, from the slides and comments in this ML after the meeting. Sorry for my slow action. I was very busy with my private things these days. I will circulate the draft formal minutes within a few days. > The status of > - draft-ietf-fax-service-v2-05.txt > > 4th paragraph, last sentence > "It is thus strongly suggested to the editors > and the WG to make any possible additional effort to clarify these points, > eventually providing some new interoperability testing, within a clear > framework." > should be truncated at the comma (,) to read > > "It is thus strongly suggested to the editors > and the WG to make any possible additional effort to clarify these points." > > It is my understanding that Ned did NOT require new TIFF-FX interoperability > testing. I believe his instructions were more consistent with taking > whatever actions necessary to insure satisfaction of the interoperability > requirements. You're right. I think Ned did not require it IN THE MEETING. In the formal minutes, I modify as the above. But, there were mail discussion about the necessity of the new testing among Ned, Claudio and me after the meeting. Next week, I comment it. Please wait. -- Hiroshi Tamura, Co-chair of IETF-FAX WG E-mail: tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Fri Apr 5 04:27:58 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 EAA00639 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 04:27:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g35928019822 for ietf-fax-bks; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 01:02:08 -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 g35925m19806 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 01:02:06 -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 SAA08144 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 18:02:05 +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 ACN51330; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 18:02:03 +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 RAA09100 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 17:58:50 +0900 (JST) To: ietf-fax@imc.org Subject: draft minutes at Minneapolis meeting X-Mailer: Mew version 1.94.2 on Emacs 20.4 / Mule 4.1 (AOI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; boundary="--Next_Part(Fri_Apr_05_18:00:58_2002_955)--" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20020405180151V.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 18:01:51 +0900 (JST) From: Hiroshi Tamura X-Dispatcher: imput version 20000228(IM140) Lines: 290 Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: ----Next_Part(Fri_Apr_05_18:00:58_2002_955)-- Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Folks, Attached is the draft minutes at our Minneapolis meeting. I use most of the "spell checked minutes" by Claudio, although I add some sentences a little on the whole, considering the comments on ML. If there are comments, please say! I would like to submit it by Apr 11 (JST). Thanks again, Claudio. Regards, -- Hiroshi Tamura, Co-chair of IETF-FAX WG E-mail: tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp ----Next_Part(Fri_Apr_05_18:00:58_2002_955)-- Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="ietf53-fax-minutes.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Minutes of the IETF 53 Internet Fax WG meeting Minneapolis, March 18th 2002 Chaired by Claudio Allocchio and Hiroshi Tamura 1 Agenda bashing The meeting started with the approval of the proposed agenda, except for the swap of point 8 (UM: Unified Messaging) with point 9 (ITU-T) (see slide: fax-0). Hiroshi Tamura welcomed the participants. 2 The I-Ds that are in RFC editor's queue Hiroshi Tamura refered the status of the current drafts: - draft-ietf-fax-implementers-guide-08.txt - draft-ietf-fax-content-negotiation-05.txt They are waiting in the RFC editor queue for publication. Hiroshi introduced that implementerd-guide I-D should become a RFC along with draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-reg-01.txt because of the reference, and the IANA registration is being processed and almost finished, regarding the content-negotiation I-D. 3 The I-Ds that IESG is reviewing (Before IETF Last Call) Ned Freed, Area Director, apologized for having the last call about - draft-ietf-fax-gateway-options-04.txt - draft-ietf-fax-gateway-protocol-06.txt not yet issued by the IESG. Apparently the request got lost. However, this gave him the opportunity for another round review, and some fixes were identified. A message to the mailing list described the AD's comments. Ned confirmed that the request for the IETF last Call for - draft-ietf-fax-esmtp-conneg-01.txt - draft-ietf-fax-timely-delivery-05.txt has been sent to the Secretariat, but there are currently more than 30 requests in the queue. Regarding the following two I-Ds: - draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-reg-01.txt - draft-ietf-fax-tiff-regbis-04.txt the IETF Last Call request is also in the queue. We would have some related discussion later in the meeting. Lloyd McIntyre explained again the reason why image/tiff registration document is targeted for BCP and on the other hand image/tiff-fx is targeted for Standard Track (currently for Proposed Standard): image/tiff collects the common use already existing of the tag since MIME existed, and just reflects the common practice to indicate with it that an appropriate TIFF write/reader should be used for the specific body part (although some different flavors exists in TIFF encodings); on the contrary, image/tiff-fx refers to a new file format, not yet widely implemented on the network, thus a strict "standard track" progressing is foreseen for it. 4 Targeted for Draft Standard 4.1 Service The status of the following I-D: - draft-ietf-fax-service-v2-05.txt is dependent on TIFF-FX, DSN specifications. Greg Vaudreuil reported that finally the DSN document was sent to IANA, and, surprisingly, only at this stage it was discovered that some of registry proposed in various documents for DNS were not in place. Ned Freed reported that this case happened for a number of IANA related documents, and the situation is being quickly corrected now, by the new IANA management. Greg confirmed that the needed fixes to the documents and IANA registries should be quick, thus solving these dependencies. Regarding TIFF-FX, we will wait until these documents find their way. 4.2 TIFF-FX Regarding the following I-D: - draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-11.txt Larry Masinter presented some considerations and objections regarding the independency of implementation and compliancy with Licensing Rules he believes exists into the interoperability tests which were made for TIFF-FX file format (see slide: fax-2). More over he objects to the overall testing method, proposing the idea that as we are testing Internet Fax objects, we should only use as test tools objects (hardware and software) which are intended to be Internet Fax products. He objects that testing single features (like for example the ability of a MIME reader to recognize the appropriate TIFF-FX decoder) does not conform to the general IETF specification for interoperability testing. Lloyd McIntyre objected that the issues raised by Larry were not correct, and that both the independency of the implementation, and the correct licensing were proven by the interoperability report. It is suggested that this is the first real case where we in the IETF try to move to Draft Standard something which has Patented technology inside, and thus the whole process needs some fixes, especially to ensure that the dialog with the Patent holders is clear at any time, and there are formal procedures to avoid the interaction problems proved by our group in this exercise. Ned Freed reminded that the IESG is following closely this problem and in particular the TIFF-FX issue. Thus the IESG, having received Larry's objections, will put a careful consideration to verify if the raised points are consistent or not. It is thus strongly suggested to the editors and the WG to make any possible additional effort to clarify these points. Also, he suggested that it is not necessary to recycle the I-D, i.e., draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-11.txt. Following the TIFF-FX discussion, a test plan for MIME image/tiff-fx registration was introduced (draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-reg-01.txt), although it is now not for Draft Standard discussion. Lloyd McIntyre noticed that this is the first time that an interoperability test plan is done for a MIME type registration, and that the test actions (see slides: fax-7, fax-8) are definitely obvious and simple, but in order to fulfill all possible flavors of the Draft Standard process, this test should be done. Larry again suggested that for testing even a single feature like this, one should not use "generic tools" like MIME User Agents etc, but only specific "Internet Fax" products which have this MIME capability. A discussion followed, without a clear conclusion, but with the suggestion that the WG considered valid to test single features, but suggested that these features will be then tested also by the products conformant to Internet Fax specifications (e.g. as in testing of RFC 2532 "Extended Facsimile Using Internet Mail" or ffpim). The specific MIME type image/tiff-fx test procedure outlined in the test plan was the accepted (with the above observation). The I-D, draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-reg-01.txt, will go for Proposed Standard ASAP, and is aimed for Draft Standard after the necessary revision period. Again it is suggested that, due to the objections raised to the previous interoperability report, while performing the image/tiff-fx tests, additional test with at least 2 independent clearly licensed implementation are added, in order to speed up the final approval of all the other documents, including the TIFF-FX file format. 5 On-Going Internet-Drafts 5.1 FFPIM "As a late X-mas gift", Dave Crocker posted the latest version of - draft-ietf-fax-ffpim-01.txt on his web site, asking for the last comments to the WG and mailing-list. As soon, these will be received and included, the WG last call will follow. 5.2 TIFF-FX extension issue Regarding the following two I-Ds: - draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-extension-1-01.txt - darft-mcintyre-feature-schema-extension1-00.txt there were no news. We confirmed the status is "dormant" waiting for the TIFF-FX issues to be solved. 6 Addressing Regarding the following I-D: - draft-allocchio-gstn-02.txt Claudio Allocchio announced that after polling again the IETF general list for comments last January, he received suggestions for representative of some telephone companies to include an additional Implementer's note in the document, regarding the actual use of "pause" and "tonewait" in real practice (see slide: fax-1). Larry Masinter asked why the specification does not mandate a specific implementation practice foe these elements. Claudio explained there are currently a large number of existing implementations which de-facto use pause and tonewait, and even if most of them commonly implement these features in the same way, mandating them would outlaw some others. However, after a brief discussion, the WG suggested that, instead of an implementers note, it would be much useful to include the suggestions given by the phone companies "as non mandatory specifications", using "SHOULD" and "MAY". Claudio would edit consequently the document and issue a -03 version by the next days. 7 Use of ENUM RFC2916 by Internet Fax Richard Shockey (see slide: fax-10) introduced the question "What use of ENUM could be done by Internet Fax?". Among possibilities lies the announcement of I-fax devices associated to an E.164 number, including eventually their capabilities (simple/full mode fax for example). The issue of inserting capabilities is also discussed into SIP and CONNEG, and ENUM NAPTR record is just another possible choice. Dave Crocker observed that currently the Internet Fax service seems to "know in advance" that to reach that "service" a known gateway is needed, while using NAPTRs one could "discover" this information from DNS, but the whole model will be different: in fact currently we only connect via known gateways islands of Internet fax service. In general the problem must be investigated carefully. Richard asked the WG to think and discuss also on the list of possible uses, and report them to the ENUM lists, too. 8 ITU-T Hiroshi Tamura reported about the ITU-T meeting held in Geneva in February 2002, especially about the T.37 distribution issue (see slides: fax-3, fax-9). Apparently the ITU-T was missing the official licensing letter from Adobe, regarding T.37 (it was missing in their archives). Hiroshi provided them a copy in the meeting and T.37 distribution was re-started. Also, the plan for submission of TIFF-FX related documents and Implementer's guide was suggested for coincidence between RFCs and T.37. 9 UM ("Unified Messaging" was re-named as "Pink Lemonade".) Eric Burger introduced some issues which he described into his draft: - draft-burger-um-reqts-00.txt (see slide: fax-4). There are some topics which needs further work, but it is not clear in which framework to insert them. They all regards "messaging" in general, even if the generic term "Unified Messaging" should be avoided as it may convey wrong feeling. For this reason the provisional term of "Pink Lemonade" will be used (but Ned recommends possibly a 'more standard' name for the activity :-) ). More over there are items which are not inserted in FAX and VPIM wg charters, and which should require a re-chartering just to insert them, plus the residual work to be finished into FAX and VPIM. The main idea is to think of a structure (WG re-chartered, existing ones?) where to perform the tasks, and keeping together the expert people. The constituency is quite well identified, and the inclusion of somebody also currently not belonging to it is foreseen. Greg Vaudreuil then presented his draft: - draft-vaudreuil-um-issues-00.txt and some further work items (see slide: fax-5) in the same framework. There are some elements to be considerd in the new work: Performance requirement, Functional limitations, Message Submission and Notification. Glenn Parsons, VPIM WG chair, presented 4 possible scenarios to perform the tasks (see slide: fax-6). Among the scenario, the WG suggested #3, i.e. the creation of a new WG with a very clear and delimited charter (to avoid the possible generic definitions of Unified Messaging which would make the new WG an umbrella for nearly anything), which takes care of the new work items suggested, and eventually of those which do not fit properly into FAX, VPIM and eventually IMAPext and others. The existing FAX and VPIM WGs are winding up, and thus should finish their tasks "as they are". Given than a number of tasks both in FAX and VPIM WGs are expected to be finished after this IETF meeting, Claudio Allocchio proposed that from the next meeting, IETF FAX and VPIM WG meet jointly in the same time slot, also saving time for the same constituency people attending both. The WG expressed consensus on this, which needs also confirmation from the VPIM WG meeting. Ned Freed agreed that option #3 is the most viable solution, and in case the charter is clear, the new WG startup process should be straightforward. There would be (announced on the list) some eventual intermediate unofficial BOFs during the meeting (the first one rolled out just before the FAX WG) to define details, and the discussion would continue at VPIM WG meeting to finalize a working plan. An editor for the new charted is wanted. 10 Confirmation of milestone Finally the milestones were revised, according to the discussion (see slide: fax-0): - TIFF-FX - Draft Standard in October 02 - image/tiff-fx - Proposed Standard in late April 02 - Draft Standard in October 02 - Gateway protocol - Fixing and last call April 02 - FFPIM - Last call in April 02 - GSTN - Proposed Standard in July 02 - TIFF-FX extension - (dormant) 11 Closing Claudio Allocchio and Hiroshi Tamura closed the meeting and said "See you all in Yokohama!". ----Next_Part(Fri_Apr_05_18:00:58_2002_955)---- From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Mon Apr 8 07:55:48 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 HAA20872 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 07:55:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g38BOe306110 for ietf-fax-bks; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 04:24:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kings.mei.co.jp (kings.mei.co.jp [202.224.189.27]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g38BOdm06105 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 04:24:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by kings.mei.co.jp (8.12.2/3.7W/kings) with ESMTP id g38BOGJR005937; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 20:24:16 +0900 (JST) Received: by mail.jp.panasonic.com (8.11.6/3.7W/mariners) with SMTP id g38BOHp12956; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 20:24:17 +0900 (JST) Received: from no.name.available by m-bb2.mgcs.mei.co.jp via smtpd (for [157.8.1.150]) with SMTP; 8 Apr 2002 11:24:17 UT Received: from mlsv1.mgcs.mei.co.jp by mlsv0-1.mgcs.mei.co.jp (8.12.2/3.7W-HUB) with ESMTP id g38BNQwi021601; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 20:23:26 +0900 (JST) Received: from mlsv2.rdmg.mgcs.mei.co.jp by mlsv1.mgcs.mei.co.jp (8.9.3/3.7W-MGCS) with ESMTP id UAA25081; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 20:24:17 +0900 (JST) Received: from d23n59.rdmg.mgcs.mei.co.jp by mlsv2.rdmg.mgcs.mei.co.jp (8.12.2/3.7W-RDMG) with SMTP id g38BOmuX012356; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 20:24:48 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <200204081130.AA01054@d23n59.rdmg.mgcs.mei.co.jp> From: "Toyoda, Kiyoshi" Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 20:30:32 +0900 To: Hiroshi Tamura Cc: ietf-fax@imc.org Subject: Re: draft minutes at Minneapolis meeting In-Reply-To: <20020405180151V.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> References: <20020405180151V.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: AL-Mail32 Version 1.12 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Tamura-san, In the minutes 3 The I-Ds that IESG is reviewing (Before IETF Last Call) Ned confirmed that the request for the IETF last Call for - draft-ietf-fax-esmtp-conneg-01.txt - draft-ietf-fax-timely-delivery-05.txt has been sent to the Secretariat, but there are currently more than 30 requests in the queue. But, I can't find "draft-ietf-fax-esmtp-conneg-01.txt" in the queue of "IESG Status of Items". Would you ask Freed-san to check it? Regards, Hiroshi Tamura wrote: >Folks, > >Attached is the draft minutes at our Minneapolis meeting. >I use most of the "spell checked minutes" by Claudio, >although I add some sentences a little on the whole, >considering the comments on ML. > >If there are comments, please say! >I would like to submit it by Apr 11 (JST). > >Thanks again, Claudio. > >Regards, >-- >Hiroshi Tamura, Co-chair of IETF-FAX WG >E-mail: tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp > Kiyoshi Toyoda From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Wed Apr 10 11:58:58 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 LAA23384 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 11:58:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g3AFShl01128 for ietf-fax-bks; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 08:28:43 -0700 (PDT) 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 g3AFSgm01124 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 08:28:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from inner-relay-2.corp.adobe.com ([153.32.1.52]) by adobe.com (1.0.0/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g3AFUOY10618 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 08:30:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailsj-v1.corp.adobe.com (mailsj-dev.corp.adobe.com [153.32.1.192]) by inner-relay-2.corp.adobe.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g3AFQBY26051 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 08:26:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from larrypad ([130.248.184.163]) by mailsj-v1.corp.adobe.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15 v1 Jul 11 2001 16:32:57) with ESMTP id GUCYY700.68U; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 08:27:43 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Larry Masinter" To: "'Hiroshi Tamura'" Cc: Subject: RE: draft minutes at Minneapolis meeting Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 08:27:42 -0700 Message-ID: <004801c1e0a4$426b9650$6ace8642@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: <20020405180151V.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> 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 A minor edit: Change the word 'products' to 'implementations': > which are intended to be Internet Fax products. He objects that testing < which are intended to be Internet Fax implementations. He objects that testing > but only specific "Internet Fax" products which have this MIME capability. < but only specific "Internet Fax" implementations which have this MIME capability. > these features will be then tested also by the products conformant to < these features will be then tested also by the implementations conformant to since that is the word I used in my slides, talk, and which occurs in RFC 2026. Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Wed Apr 10 21:18:01 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 VAA06505 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 21:18:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g3B0oGt02792 for ietf-fax-bks; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 17:50:16 -0700 (PDT) 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 g3B0oEm02785 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 17:50:14 -0700 (PDT) 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 JAA29790; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 09:50:16 +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 ACX71313; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 09:50:15 +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 JAA09505; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 09:46:57 +0900 (JST) To: ietf-fax@imc.org, claudio.allocchio@garr.it Cc: ned.freed@mrochek.com Subject: TIFF-FX format re-testing is necessary X-Mailer: Mew version 1.94.2 on Emacs 20.4 / Mule 4.1 (AOI) References: <20020405180151V.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20020411095025F.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 09:50:25 +0900 (JST) From: Hiroshi Tamura X-Dispatcher: imput version 20000228(IM140) Lines: 59 Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Folks, As the draft minutes says, > Ned Freed reminded that the IESG is following closely this problem and in > particular the TIFF-FX issue. Thus the IESG, having received Larry's > objections, will put a careful consideration to verify if the raised > points are consistent or not. It is thus strongly suggested to the editors > and the WG to make any possible additional effort to clarify these points. In the meeting, Ned did not say clearly that it is necessary to do the testing for TIFF-FX format. But, after the meeting, Ned, Claudio and I talked about how to deal with the Draft Standard process as smoothly as possible. In the event, it was agreed that the re-testing is necessary. If the situation is not changed, the same objection would be done again. We are not in court, but, in order to clear the doubts, we agreed we should do the re-testing. I must say, Japanese manufactures already had the testing in 1999 thru 2001, regarding Profile S and F. We already have the report: http://www.ciaj.or.jp/ciaj/ciaj-e/quart/vol-19/1903.html. It is the report in 1999 and one of the reports. There is another report, but it is not written in English. My Japanese colleagues and I can modify the report for Draft Standard consideration and submit it to IETF. Also, I must say, the report does not have anything to do with http://www.ietf.org/IESG/Implementations/TIFF-FAX-implementation.txt. Thus, I propose the new testing should be done for Profile J, C, L and M. Ned and Claudio already accepted it. Anyway, I encourage all of you to attend the testing again. The exact schedule is not decided yet, but, if possible, it is better to do it before the next IETF meeting. Now, I am trying to find the implementation information in Japan. It surely can be done for Profile J and C. There are two independent implementations. Regarding Profile L and M implementations in Japan, now, I am collecting the information. There was surely the implemenations. If you have the implementation information for Profile J, C, L and M, please say here. Any information is appreciated. Also, I would like to say, Service I-D wating for Draft Standard is dependent on TIFF-FX. For the I-D, we need to make it to be Draft Standard. Please understand the situation, everyone. Claudio, if there are something you should follow, please comment! Regards, -- Hiroshi Tamura, Co-chair of IETF-FAX WG E-mail: tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Thu Apr 11 04:44:41 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 EAA22346 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 04:44:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g3B8IIr04180 for ietf-fax-bks; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 01:18:18 -0700 (PDT) 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 g3B8IFm04168 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 01:18:16 -0700 (PDT) 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 RAA27983; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 17:16:50 +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 ACX83589; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 17:16:49 +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 RAA09530; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 17:13:31 +0900 (JST) To: minutes@ietf.org Cc: ned.freed@mrochek.com, paf@cisco.com, ietf-fax@imc.org Subject: IETF-FAX WG minutes at Minneapolis meeting In-Reply-To: <20010908121309O.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> References: <20010403074427D.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> <20010908121309O.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: <20020411171659Y.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 17:16:59 +0900 (JST) From: Hiroshi Tamura X-Dispatcher: imput version 20000228(IM140) Lines: 269 Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Attached is the FAX WG minutes at London meeting. We already submitted our slides. Regards, -- Hiroshi Tamura, Co-chair of IETF-FAX WG E-mail: tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp ----------------------------------------------------------------- Minutes of the IETF 53 Internet Fax WG meeting Minneapolis, March 18th 2002 Chaired by Claudio Allocchio and Hiroshi Tamura 1 Agenda bashing The meeting started with the approval of the proposed agenda, except for the swap of point 8 (UM: Unified Messaging) with point 9 (ITU-T) (see slide: fax-0). Hiroshi Tamura welcomed the participants. 2 The I-Ds that are in RFC editor's queue Hiroshi Tamura refered the status of the current drafts: - draft-ietf-fax-implementers-guide-08.txt - draft-ietf-fax-content-negotiation-05.txt They are waiting in the RFC editor queue for publication. Hiroshi introduced that implementerd-guide I-D should become a RFC along with draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-reg-01.txt because of the reference, and the IANA registration is being processed and almost finished, regarding the content-negotiation I-D. 3 The I-Ds that IESG is reviewing (Before IETF Last Call) Ned Freed, Area Director, apologized for having the last call about - draft-ietf-fax-gateway-options-04.txt - draft-ietf-fax-gateway-protocol-06.txt not yet issued by the IESG. Apparently the request got lost. However, this gave him the opportunity for another round review, and some fixes were identified. A message to the mailing list described the AD's comments. Ned confirmed that the request for the IETF last Call for - draft-ietf-fax-esmtp-conneg-01.txt - draft-ietf-fax-timely-delivery-05.txt has been sent to the Secretariat, but there are currently more than 30 requests in the queue. Regarding the following two I-Ds: - draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-reg-01.txt - draft-ietf-fax-tiff-regbis-04.txt the IETF Last Call request is also in the queue. We would have some related discussion later in the meeting. Lloyd McIntyre explained again the reason why image/tiff registration document is targeted for BCP and on the other hand image/tiff-fx is targeted for Standard Track (currently for Proposed Standard): image/tiff collects the common use already existing of the tag since MIME existed, and just reflects the common practice to indicate with it that an appropriate TIFF write/reader should be used for the specific body part (although some different flavors exists in TIFF encodings); on the contrary, image/tiff-fx refers to a new file format, not yet widely implemented on the network, thus a strict "standard track" progressing is foreseen for it. 4 Targeted for Draft Standard 4.1 Service The status of the following I-D: - draft-ietf-fax-service-v2-05.txt is dependent on TIFF-FX, DSN specifications. Greg Vaudreuil reported that finally the DSN document was sent to IANA, and, surprisingly, only at this stage it was discovered that some of registry proposed in various documents for DNS were not in place. Ned Freed reported that this case happened for a number of IANA related documents, and the situation is being quickly corrected now, by the new IANA management. Greg confirmed that the needed fixes to the documents and IANA registries should be quick, thus solving these dependencies. Regarding TIFF-FX, we will wait until these documents find their way. 4.2 TIFF-FX Regarding the following I-D: - draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-11.txt Larry Masinter presented some considerations and objections regarding the independency of implementation and compliancy with Licensing Rules he believes exists into the interoperability tests which were made for TIFF-FX file format (see slide: fax-2). More over he objects to the overall testing method, proposing the idea that as we are testing Internet Fax objects, we should only use as test tools objects (hardware and software) which are intended to be Internet Fax implementations. He objects that testing single features (like for example the ability of a MIME reader to recognize the appropriate TIFF-FX decoder) does not conform to the general IETF specification for interoperability testing. Lloyd McIntyre objected that the issues raised by Larry were not correct, and that both the independency of the implementation, and the correct licensing were proven by the interoperability report. It is suggested that this is the first real case where we in the IETF try to move to Draft Standard something which has Patented technology inside, and thus the whole process needs some fixes, especially to ensure that the dialog with the Patent holders is clear at any time, and there are formal procedures to avoid the interaction problems proved by our group in this exercise. Ned Freed reminded that the IESG is following closely this problem and in particular the TIFF-FX issue. Thus the IESG, having received Larry's objections, will put a careful consideration to verify if the raised points are consistent or not. It is thus strongly suggested to the editors and the WG to make any possible additional effort to clarify these points. Also, he suggested that it is not necessary to recycle the I-D, i.e., draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-11.txt. Following the TIFF-FX discussion, a test plan for MIME image/tiff-fx registration was introduced (draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-reg-01.txt), although it is now not for Draft Standard discussion. Lloyd McIntyre noticed that this is the first time that an interoperability test plan is done for a MIME type registration, and that the test actions (see slides: fax-7, fax-8) are definitely obvious and simple, but in order to fulfill all possible flavors of the Draft Standard process, this test should be done. Larry again suggested that for testing even a single feature like this, one should not use "generic tools" like MIME User Agents etc, but only specific "Internet Fax" implementations which have this MIME capability. A discussion followed, without a clear conclusion, but with the suggestion that the WG considered valid to test single features, but suggested that these features will be then tested also by the implementations conformant to Internet Fax specifications (e.g. as in testing of RFC 2532 "Extended Facsimile Using Internet Mail" or ffpim). The specific MIME type image/tiff-fx test procedure outlined in the test plan was the accepted (with the above observation). The I-D, draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-reg-01.txt, will go for Proposed Standard ASAP, and is aimed for Draft Standard after the necessary revision period. Again it is suggested that, due to the objections raised to the previous interoperability report, while performing the image/tiff-fx tests, additional test with at least 2 independent clearly licensed implementation are added, in order to speed up the final approval of all the other documents, including the TIFF-FX file format. 5 On-Going Internet-Drafts 5.1 FFPIM "As a late X-mas gift", Dave Crocker posted the latest version of - draft-ietf-fax-ffpim-01.txt on his web site, asking for the last comments to the WG and mailing-list. As soon, these will be received and included, the WG last call will follow. 5.2 TIFF-FX extension issue Regarding the following two I-Ds: - draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-extension-1-01.txt - darft-mcintyre-feature-schema-extension1-00.txt there were no news. We confirmed the status is "dormant" waiting for the TIFF-FX issues to be solved. 6 Addressing Regarding the following I-D: - draft-allocchio-gstn-02.txt Claudio Allocchio announced that after polling again the IETF general list for comments last January, he received suggestions for representative of some telephone companies to include an additional Implementer's note in the document, regarding the actual use of "pause" and "tonewait" in real practice (see slide: fax-1). Larry Masinter asked why the specification does not mandate a specific implementation practice foe these elements. Claudio explained there are currently a large number of existing implementations which de-facto use pause and tonewait, and even if most of them commonly implement these features in the same way, mandating them would outlaw some others. However, after a brief discussion, the WG suggested that, instead of an implementers note, it would be much useful to include the suggestions given by the phone companies "as non mandatory specifications", using "SHOULD" and "MAY". Claudio would edit consequently the document and issue a -03 version by the next days. 7 Use of ENUM RFC2916 by Internet Fax Richard Shockey (see slide: fax-10) introduced the question "What use of ENUM could be done by Internet Fax?". Among possibilities lies the announcement of I-fax devices associated to an E.164 number, including eventually their capabilities (simple/full mode fax for example). The issue of inserting capabilities is also discussed into SIP and CONNEG, and ENUM NAPTR record is just another possible choice. Dave Crocker observed that currently the Internet Fax service seems to "know in advance" that to reach that "service" a known gateway is needed, while using NAPTRs one could "discover" this information from DNS, but the whole model will be different: in fact currently we only connect via known gateways islands of Internet fax service. In general the problem must be investigated carefully. Richard asked the WG to think and discuss also on the list of possible uses, and report them to the ENUM lists, too. 8 ITU-T Hiroshi Tamura reported about the ITU-T meeting held in Geneva in February 2002, especially about the T.37 distribution issue (see slides: fax-3, fax-9). Apparently the ITU-T was missing the official licensing letter from Adobe, regarding T.37 (it was missing in their archives). Hiroshi provided them a copy in the meeting and T.37 distribution was re-started. Also, the plan for submission of TIFF-FX related documents and Implementer's guide was suggested for coincidence between RFCs and T.37. 9 UM ("Unified Messaging" was re-named as "Pink Lemonade".) Eric Burger introduced some issues which he described into his draft: - draft-burger-um-reqts-00.txt (see slide: fax-4). There are some topics which needs further work, but it is not clear in which framework to insert them. They all regards "messaging" in general, even if the generic term "Unified Messaging" should be avoided as it may convey wrong feeling. For this reason the provisional term of "Pink Lemonade" will be used (but Ned recommends possibly a 'more standard' name for the activity :-) ). More over there are items which are not inserted in FAX and VPIM wg charters, and which should require a re-chartering just to insert them, plus the residual work to be finished into FAX and VPIM. The main idea is to think of a structure (WG re-chartered, existing ones?) where to perform the tasks, and keeping together the expert people. The constituency is quite well identified, and the inclusion of somebody also currently not belonging to it is foreseen. Greg Vaudreuil then presented his draft: - draft-vaudreuil-um-issues-00.txt and some further work items (see slide: fax-5) in the same framework. There are some elements to be considerd in the new work: Performance requirement, Functional limitations, Message Submission and Notification. Glenn Parsons, VPIM WG chair, presented 4 possible scenarios to perform the tasks (see slide: fax-6). Among the scenario, the WG suggested #3, i.e. the creation of a new WG with a very clear and delimited charter (to avoid the possible generic definitions of Unified Messaging which would make the new WG an umbrella for nearly anything), which takes care of the new work items suggested, and eventually of those which do not fit properly into FAX, VPIM and eventually IMAPext and others. The existing FAX and VPIM WGs are winding up, and thus should finish their tasks "as they are". Given than a number of tasks both in FAX and VPIM WGs are expected to be finished after this IETF meeting, Claudio Allocchio proposed that from the next meeting, IETF FAX and VPIM WG meet jointly in the same time slot, also saving time for the same constituency people attending both. The WG expressed consensus on this, which needs also confirmation from the VPIM WG meeting. Ned Freed agreed that option #3 is the most viable solution, and in case the charter is clear, the new WG startup process should be straightforward. There would be (announced on the list) some eventual intermediate unofficial BOFs during the meeting (the first one rolled out just before the FAX WG) to define details, and the discussion would continue at VPIM WG meeting to finalize a working plan. An editor for the new charted is wanted. 10 Confirmation of milestone Finally the milestones were revised, according to the discussion (see slide: fax-0): - TIFF-FX - Draft Standard in October 02 - image/tiff-fx - Proposed Standard in late April 02 - Draft Standard in October 02 - Gateway protocol - Fixing and last call April 02 - FFPIM - Last call in April 02 - GSTN - Proposed Standard in July 02 - TIFF-FX extension - (dormant) 11 Closing Claudio Allocchio and Hiroshi Tamura closed the meeting and said "See you all in Yokohama!". From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Thu Apr 11 14:33:55 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 OAA08952 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 14:33:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g3BI5Tu13035 for ietf-fax-bks; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 11:05:29 -0700 (PDT) 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 g3BI5Tm13030 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 11:05:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from inner-relay-1.corp.adobe.com ([153.32.1.51]) by adobe.com (1.0.0/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g3BI7AY15186 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 11:07:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailsj-v1.corp.adobe.com (mailsj-dev.corp.adobe.com [153.32.1.192]) by inner-relay-1.corp.adobe.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g3BI4ro04667 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 11:04:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from larrypad ([153.32.67.58]) by mailsj-v1.corp.adobe.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15 v1 Jul 11 2001 16:32:57) with ESMTP id GUF0VE00.FE9; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 11:04:26 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Larry Masinter" To: "'Hiroshi Tamura'" , , Cc: Subject: RE: TIFF-FX format re-testing is necessary Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 11:04:13 -0700 Message-ID: <000701c1e183$496efb60$3a432099@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: <20020411095025F.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Since there will be new interoperability testing, could those doing the testing please save some of the test messages/files? It would be useful for others who might want to test interoperability later; it can also validate the range of options tested. I asked back in September for test messages or test files, but didn't get any response, and I can't find any test messages or files anywhere, not even for TIFF S or F. Most useful, I would think, would be an archive of samples, reachable from the http://www.imc.org/ietf-fax/ . There are some differences between RFC 2301 and draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-11.txt. Will the tests cover the areas of difference (e.g., use of the optional GlobalParametersIFD in profiles S and F)? Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Sun Apr 14 22:54:55 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 WAA27181 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 22:54:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g3F2LmP01862 for ietf-fax-bks; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 19:21:48 -0700 (PDT) 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 g3F2Ljm01858 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 19:21:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from azteca.isd.ricoh.co.jp (IDENT:mirapoint@[133.139.250.74]) by mail.notes.ricoh.co.jp (8.11.6/3.7W) id g3F2Kca26913; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 11:20:38 +0900 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 ACP19180; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 11:20:37 +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 LAA09785; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 11:17:16 +0900 (JST) To: LMM@acm.org Cc: ietf-fax@imc.org, claudio.allocchio@garr.it, ned.freed@mrochek.com Subject: RE: TIFF-FX format re-testing is necessary In-Reply-To: <000701c1e183$496efb60$3a432099@larrypad> References: <20020411095025F.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> <000701c1e183$496efb60$3a432099@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: <20020415112054S.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 11:20:54 +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 > Since there will be new interoperability testing, could those > doing the testing please save some of the test messages/files? > It would be useful for others who might want to test > interoperability later; it can also validate the range > of options tested. It would be useful, but, I do not think it is necessary in implementation reports. It would be like including all the protocol header or format. > There are some differences between RFC 2301 and > draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-11.txt. Will the tests cover > the areas of difference (e.g., use of the optional > GlobalParametersIFD in profiles S and F)? There are slight differences. But, I do not think there are not large difference technically, regarding the file format, as I roughly see the revision. To the Editors: If it is not correct, please comment. Anyway, the format of the implementation report will be similar to the previous one that we already have in IETF site. -- Hiroshi Tamura, Co-chair of IETF-FAX WG E-mail: tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Tue Apr 16 03:14:10 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 DAA25456 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 03:14:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g3G6ju726777 for ietf-fax-bks; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 23:45:56 -0700 (PDT) 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 g3G6jnm26769 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 23:45:54 -0700 (PDT) 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 CAA23592 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 02:45:28 -0400 (EDT) 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 XAA20197 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 23:47:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by x-crt-es-ms1.cp10.es.xerox.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 23:45:44 -0700 Message-ID: <918C79AB552BD211A2BD00805F15CE85066E6D70@x-crt-es-ms1.cp10.es.xerox.com> From: "Hastings, Tom N" To: ietf-fax@imc.org Subject: FW: IFX> Federal court rules ban on "junk faxes" violates First A mendment Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 23:45:40 -0700 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: I would have to agree with the expert below that this U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri ruling had better get overturned. Tom -----Original Message----- From: don@lexmark.com [mailto:don@lexmark.com] Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 12:48 To: ifx@pwg.org Subject: IFX> Federal court rules ban on "junk faxes" violates First Amendment fyi... ********************************************** * Don Wright don@lexmark.com * * * * Member, IEEE SA Standards Board * * Member, IEEE-ISTO Board of Directors * * f.wright@ieee.org / f.wright@computer.org * * * * Director, Alliances and Standards * * Lexmark International * * 740 New Circle Rd C14/082-3 * * Lexington, Ky 40550 * * 859-825-4808 (phone) 603-963-8352 (fax) * ********************************************** ---------------------- Forwarded by Don Wright/Lex/Lexmark on 04/15/2002 03:46 PM --------------------------- Declan McCullagh on 04/15/2002 04:38:20 PM Please respond to declan%well.com@interlock.lexmark.com To: politech%politechbot.com@interlock.lexmark.com cc: (bcc: Don Wright/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: FC: Federal court rules ban on "junk faxes" violates First Amendment --- Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 14:47:28 -0400 To: politech@politechbot.com From: "Robert L. Ellis" Subject: Fwd: FEDERAL COURT RULES BAN ON FAX ADVERTISEMENTS VIOLATESFIRST AMENDMENT Declan, The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri has just=20 declared unconstitutional the ban on "junk faxes" contained in Telephone=20 Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. =A7 227. http://pacer.moed.uscourts.gov/opinions/STATE_OF_MISSOURI_EX_REL_JERMIAH_W_N IXON_ATTORNEY_GENERAL_V_AMERICAN_BLAST_FAX_INC_ET_AL-SNL-79.PDF About a decade ago I provided testimony to Markey's subcommittee on this=20 law when it was in the hearing stage, and analyzed the underlying=20 "regulation of commercial speech" doctrine, and it seemed to me then (and=20 even more now) that if ever there were a legitimate and constitutional=20 ground to regulate commercial speech under the Central Hudson standard (the= =20 one the court also discusses), fax advertising is it. The court's opinion= =20 appears to me to be quite naive, especially regarding issues of bandwidth=20 (one fax at a time), and I predict it will be overturned on appeal --=20 especially if the courts in the 8th Circuit start getting inundated with=20 advertisements via their fax machines. If the opinion is upheld, there will be no chance of any spam regulation. Below is a press release from FAX.COM gloating about the decision. - Bob >>From: FrankGroffInc@aol.com >>Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 15:46:36 EST >>Subject: FEDERAL COURT RULES BAN ON FAX ADVERTISEMENTS VIOLATES FIRST=20 >>AMENDMENT >>To: FrankGroffInc@aol.com >> >>FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE >>CLIENT: FAX.COM/FX5000 >>For more information contact Frank Groff, 562/491-1000 >> >>4/3/02 >> >>FEDERAL COURT RULES BAN ON FAX ADVERTISEMENTS VIOLATES FIRST AMENDMENT >>(California Fax Company Hails Ruling as "Victory") >> >>Signaling a triumph for First Amendment rights, a United States District >>Court in Missouri has ruled that the federal statute that bars faxing of >>unsolicited advertisements is unconstitutional. The ruling arose from a= case >>filed by the State of Missouri against two fax advertising companies, >>Fax.com, a company headquartered in Aliso Viejo, Calif., and American= Blast >>Fax, a now defunct Texas company. In a decision filed on March 13, the=20 >>Court rejected the State's contention >>that unsolicited fax advertisements pose a "serious problem" and found= that >>the broad ban on such advertisements unnecessarily violates First= Amendment >>rights. >> >>"We are pleased with the Court's decision vindicating companies like ours >>that utilize modern technology to disseminate information to consumers,"= said >>Kevin Katz, founder and president of Fax.com. "This landmark decision >>affirms that commercial fax messages have value and are protected under= the >>First Amendment." >>Missouri State Attorney General Jeremiah (Jay) Nixon filed the suits= against >>Fax.com and American Blast Fax in August of 2000, asserting that= unsolicited >>fax advertising violates the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act of >>1991 (TCPA). When the federal statute's ban on fax advertising was= attacked >>as unconstitutional, the Federal Communications Commission joined the suit= at >>the invitation of the Court to defend the ban. >>After careful consideration of evidence and arguments submitted by the= FCC, >>the State of Missouri and Fax.com, Senior U.S. District Judge Stephen >>Limbaugh ruled that the TCPA's ban on unsolicited fax advertising violates >>the First Amendment. >>The Court rejected the argument that unsolicited fax= advertisements-typically >>one page-cause recipients to incur substantial printing costs and that fax >>ads actually prevent businesses and consumers from receiving other faxes.= =20 >>The Court also found that "there is no rationality behind the government's >>distinction between unsolicited advertisements and other unsolicited= faxes," >>and therefore the ban on fax advertisements does not "directly advance"= its >>goal of saving costs and freeing fax machines. >>The Court found that there were other less restrictive methods of dealing >>with these issues than a complete ban on unsolicited fax advertisements. = One >>approach, the Court noted, is requiring that fax advertisements include a >>toll-free number recipients can call to have their fax numbers deleted= from >>fax lists-an approach California and several other states have adopted. >> >>Founded in 1998, Fax.com offers a turn-key approach to facsimile marketing= by >>helping advertisers define their target demographic groups and= create >>and distribute effective fax ads. Founded by entrepreneurs Katz and Eric >>Wilson, the company's mission is to balance its core revenue-generating >>commercial business with a dedication to public service. >>At no charge, Fax.com assists law enforcement in finding missing=20 >>children. Teaming with such recognized missing persons organizations as=20 >>the Polly Klaas >>Foundation, ChildQuest International, Operation Lookout and the Children's >>Advocacy Centers of Texas, fax alerts sent out by Fax.com have helped= locate >>10 missing children. Fax.com also offers, at no charge, to send faxes to >>assist organizations seeking organ transplant donors, help law enforcement >>track criminal fugitives and support charitable organizations. >> >>For more information about Fax.com, call (800) 310-5188. >> >>***** > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ellis Venable & Busam A Partnership of Professional Organizations 33 North High Street, Columbus, OH 43215-3076 +1 614.221.2422 phone 221.5244 fax www.internet-attorneys.com=20 --=====================_3039813==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sign this pro-therapeutic cloning petition: http://www.franklinsociety.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Tue Apr 16 04:31:32 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 EAA26379 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 04:31:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g3G86QQ10526 for ietf-fax-bks; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 01:06:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail2.alphalink.com.au (mail2.alphalink.com.au [202.161.124.58]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g3G86Bm10394 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 01:06:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from john (d370-ps2-mel.alphalink.com.au [202.161.108.116]) by mail2.alphalink.com.au (8.11.4/8.9.3) with SMTP id g3G865Q04101 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 18:06:06 +1000 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20020416180302.00b01b60@pop.alphalink.com.au> X-Sender: jperkins@pop.alphalink.com.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 18:03:02 +1000 To: ietf-fax@imc.org From: John Perkins Subject: RE: TIFF-FX format re-testing is necessary In-Reply-To: <20020415112054S.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> References: <000701c1e183$496efb60$3a432099@larrypad> <20020411095025F.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> <000701c1e183$496efb60$3a432099@larrypad> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: It would be appeciated if the TIFF files used in constructing a further implememtation report could be referenced along with the report so that those who may subsequently wish to replicate their own tests are able to do so. Thank you. John At 11:20 15/04/02 +0900, Hiroshi Tamura wrote: > >> Since there will be new interoperability testing, could those >> doing the testing please save some of the test messages/files? >> It would be useful for others who might want to test >> interoperability later; it can also validate the range >> of options tested. > >It would be useful, but, I do not think it is necessary >in implementation reports. >It would be like including all the protocol header or format. > >> There are some differences between RFC 2301 and >> draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-11.txt. Will the tests cover >> the areas of difference (e.g., use of the optional >> GlobalParametersIFD in profiles S and F)? > >There are slight differences. But, I do not think there are >not large difference technically, regarding the file format, >as I roughly see the revision. > >To the Editors: >If it is not correct, please comment. > >Anyway, the format of the implementation report will be >similar to the previous one that we already have in IETF site. > > >-- >Hiroshi Tamura, Co-chair of IETF-FAX WG >E-mail: tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp > > From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Wed Apr 17 19:50:04 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 TAA11248 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 19:50:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g3HNLfE08849 for ietf-fax-bks; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 16:21:41 -0700 (PDT) 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 g3HNLPm08842 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 16:21:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from azteca.isd.ricoh.co.jp (IDENT:mirapoint@[133.139.250.74]) by mail.notes.ricoh.co.jp (8.11.6/3.7W) id g3HNL7t03377; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 08:21:07 +0900 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 ACP66093; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 08:21:06 +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 IAA10019; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 08:17:42 +0900 (JST) To: jperkins@exfax.com Cc: ietf-fax@imc.org Subject: RE: TIFF-FX format re-testing is necessary In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20020416180302.00b01b60@pop.alphalink.com.au> References: <000701c1e183$496efb60$3a432099@larrypad> <20020415112054S.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> <3.0.5.32.20020416180302.00b01b60@pop.alphalink.com.au> 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: <20020418082127E.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 08:21:27 +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 John, > It would be appeciated if the TIFF files used in constructing a further > implememtation report could be referenced along with the report so that > those who may subsequently wish to replicate their own tests are able to do > so. Thank you. As it is not required to attach files or protocol formats in the implementation report, basically, I do not do them. Please mail to the contact people in the report, after the submision. If they receive lots of request, there would be something to consider. If you need the sample of my company, please contact me. But, I understand the situation. I looked for the sites that have some files. It seems that ITU-T has some of them. Please visit http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/1997-2000/com08/tiff-fx/send2.html. I believe it meets your requrest. Regards, -- Hiroshi Tamura, Co-chair of IETF-FAX WG E-mail: tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Thu Apr 18 13:28:15 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 NAA15778 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 13:28:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g3IH1aS24868 for ietf-fax-bks; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 10:01:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [209.55.107.55]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g3IH1Zm24862 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 10:01:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01KGPA94O6M80000FB@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf-fax@imc.org; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 10:01:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 09:51:45 -0700 (PDT) From: ned.freed@mrochek.com Subject: IESG comments on draft-ietf-fax-tiff-regbis-04.txt In-reply-to: "Your message dated Mon, 14 Jan 2002 10:40:18 -0500" <200201141540.KAA04624@ietf.org> To: ietf-fax@imc.org Cc: ned.freed@mrochek.com, paf@cisco.com Message-id: <01KGPE4CLN600000FB@mauve.mrochek.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT This document was on the IESG's agenda today. Unfortunately, a number of issues have arisen that need to be addressed. First and foremost is the document status. The IESG doesn't believe publication as BCP is appropriate. It really needs to be on the standards track. So what's going to happen now is that a new IETF last call will be issued for standards track. Now, in order to expedite this process the IESG has already reviewed the document and found a number of issues that need to be addressed: This document needs a changes section describing how it differs from RFC 2302. The abstract needs to be revised to expand the various acronyms used in it. A security considerations section needs to be added. The one in the media type registration is insufficient. The following text needs to be added to the description of the application parameter: An "application" field is a hint to the receiver. It MUST NOT be used as a blind request to execute some arbitrary program. Instead, it should be viewed as nothing more than an indication of what sort of application would be able to handle the content most appropriately. The bibliography needs to be separated into normative and nonnormative references. There needs to be a nonnormative reference to RFC 2302 in the bibliography. Please change the "Encoding Considerations" in section 7 to read: Encoding Considerations: This media type consists of binary data. The base64 should be used on transports that cannot accomodate binary data directly. So the process going forward will be first for the authors to issue a revised draft that addresses these points. This needs to be done as quickly as possible. Once the revision is out there will be an immediate last call for proposed. And once that's over the IESG should be able to approve the document quite quickly given that it has already been reviewed. Ned From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Fri Apr 19 01:22:02 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 BAA02543 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 01:22:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g3J4qdS26276 for ietf-fax-bks; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 21:52:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail3.alphalink.com.au (mail3.alphalink.com.au [202.161.124.59]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g3J4qJb26269 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 21:52:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from john (d47-ps2-mel.alphalink.com.au [202.161.107.47]) by mail3.alphalink.com.au (8.11.4/8.9.3) with SMTP id g3J4q2R27393; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 14:52:04 +1000 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20020418200607.0095bc60@pop.alphalink.com.au> X-Sender: jperkins@pop.alphalink.com.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 20:06:07 +1000 To: Hiroshi Tamura From: John Perkins Subject: RE: TIFF-FX format re-testing is necessary Cc: ietf-fax@imc.org In-Reply-To: <20020418082127E.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> References: <3.0.5.32.20020416180302.00b01b60@pop.alphalink.com.au> <000701c1e183$496efb60$3a432099@larrypad> <20020415112054S.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> <3.0.5.32.20020416180302.00b01b60@pop.alphalink.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Tamura-san Thank you for your ITU-T reference to sample TIFF files. This is a useful reference but contains the file names only, without any description of the profiles they represent. It is of course possible to interrogate the Tags in order to deduce the proflie, however I believe it would be of assistance to implementors to have reference files with descriptions. regards John At 08:21 18/04/02 +0900, Hiroshi Tamura wrote: > >John, > >> It would be appeciated if the TIFF files used in constructing a further >> implememtation report could be referenced along with the report so that >> those who may subsequently wish to replicate their own tests are able to do >> so. Thank you. > >As it is not required to attach files or protocol formats >in the implementation report, basically, I do not do them. >Please mail to the contact people in the report, after the submision. >If they receive lots of request, there would be something to consider. > >If you need the sample of my company, please contact me. > >But, I understand the situation. I looked for the sites that have >some files. It seems that ITU-T has some of them. >Please visit http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/1997-2000/com08/tiff-fx/send2.html. >I believe it meets your requrest. > >Regards, >-- >Hiroshi Tamura, Co-chair of IETF-FAX WG >E-mail: tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp > > -------------------------------------------------------- John Perkins Exfax Technologies Pty Ltd PO Box 6004 Melbourne Australia 3004 Tel +61 3 9534 5495 Fax +61 3 9534 8994 http://www.exfax.com -------------------------------------------------------- From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Fri Apr 19 10:03:46 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 KAA20290 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 10:03:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g3JDa5C20507 for ietf-fax-bks; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 06:36:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from salvelinus.brooktrout.com (salvelinus.brooktrout.com [204.176.205.6]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g3JDZjb20454 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 06:35:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nhmail1.admin.brooktrout.com (nhmail1.admin.brooktrout.com [204.176.75.8]) by salvelinus.brooktrout.com (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id g3JDTqA05181; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 09:30:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: by nhmail1.admin.brooktrout.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 09:37:25 -0400 Message-ID: <11740AB18BD4D111BE8F00A0C9B8044F0552A5A2@nhmail1.admin.brooktrout.com> From: James Rafferty To: "'John Perkins'" , Hiroshi Tamura Cc: ietf-fax@imc.org Subject: RE: TIFF-FX format re-testing is necessary Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 09:37:23 -0400 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: John, The files themselves are intended to supplement the appendix on TIFF-FX file formats within T.37 (Appendix 1 I believe). So, all of the explanations are contained in the T.37 appendix itself. James > -----Original Message----- > From: John Perkins [mailto:jperkins@exfax.com] > Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 6:06 AM > To: Hiroshi Tamura > Cc: ietf-fax@imc.org > Subject: RE: TIFF-FX format re-testing is necessary > > > > Tamura-san > > Thank you for your ITU-T reference to sample TIFF files. This > is a useful > reference but contains the file names only, without any > description of the > profiles they represent. It is of course possible to > interrogate the Tags > in order to deduce the proflie, however I believe it would be > of assistance > to implementors to have reference files with descriptions. > > regards > > John > > At 08:21 18/04/02 +0900, Hiroshi Tamura wrote: > > > >John, > > > >> It would be appeciated if the TIFF files used in > constructing a further > >> implememtation report could be referenced along with the > report so that > >> those who may subsequently wish to replicate their own > tests are able to do > >> so. Thank you. > > > >As it is not required to attach files or protocol formats > >in the implementation report, basically, I do not do them. > >Please mail to the contact people in the report, after the submision. > >If they receive lots of request, there would be something to > consider. > > > >If you need the sample of my company, please contact me. > > > >But, I understand the situation. I looked for the sites that have > >some files. It seems that ITU-T has some of them. > >Please visit http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/1997-2000/com08/tiff-fx/send2.html. >I believe it meets your requrest. > >Regards, >-- >Hiroshi Tamura, Co-chair of IETF-FAX WG >E-mail: tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp > > -------------------------------------------------------- John Perkins Exfax Technologies Pty Ltd PO Box 6004 Melbourne Australia 3004 Tel +61 3 9534 5495 Fax +61 3 9534 8994 http://www.exfax.com -------------------------------------------------------- From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Fri Apr 19 14:12:26 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 OAA13370 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 14:12:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g3JHiCK07842 for ietf-fax-bks; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 10:44:12 -0700 (PDT) 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 g3JHhqb07830 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 10:43:53 -0700 (PDT) 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 NAA26806; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 13:43:44 -0400 (EDT) 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 KAA23950; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 10:43:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mercury.ADOC.xerox.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2654.89) id <2V98SGCC>; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 10:43:24 -0700 Message-ID: <51B8ABCE456FD111899900805F6FD6EE0D912825@mercury.ADOC.xerox.com> From: "McIntyre, Lloyd" To: "'James Rafferty'" , "'John Perkins'" , Hiroshi Tamura Cc: ietf-fax@imc.org Subject: RE: TIFF-FX format re-testing is necessary Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 10:43:23 -0700 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: John, Adding to James's comments below, the page contains the link "TIFF-FX Sample Listings" which provides all the details associated with the samples. Lloyd > -----Original Message----- > From: James Rafferty [mailto:jraff@brooktrout.com] > Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 6:37 AM > To: 'John Perkins'; Hiroshi Tamura > Cc: ietf-fax@imc.org > Subject: RE: TIFF-FX format re-testing is necessary > > > > John, > > The files themselves are intended to supplement > the appendix on TIFF-FX file formats within T.37 (Appendix > 1 I believe). So, all of the explanations > are contained in the T.37 appendix itself. > > James > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: John Perkins [mailto:jperkins@exfax.com] > > Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 6:06 AM > > To: Hiroshi Tamura > > Cc: ietf-fax@imc.org > > Subject: RE: TIFF-FX format re-testing is necessary > > > > > > > > Tamura-san > > > > Thank you for your ITU-T reference to sample TIFF files. This > > is a useful > > reference but contains the file names only, without any > > description of the > > profiles they represent. It is of course possible to > > interrogate the Tags > > in order to deduce the proflie, however I believe it would be > > of assistance > > to implementors to have reference files with descriptions. > > > > regards > > > > John > > > > At 08:21 18/04/02 +0900, Hiroshi Tamura wrote: > > > > > >John, > > > > > >> It would be appeciated if the TIFF files used in > > constructing a further > > >> implememtation report could be referenced along with the > > report so that > > >> those who may subsequently wish to replicate their own > > tests are able to do > > >> so. Thank you. > > > > > >As it is not required to attach files or protocol formats > > >in the implementation report, basically, I do not do them. > > >Please mail to the contact people in the report, after the > submision. > > >If they receive lots of request, there would be something to > > consider. > > > > > >If you need the sample of my company, please contact me. > > > > > >But, I understand the situation. I looked for the sites that have > > >some files. It seems that ITU-T has some of them. > > >Please visit > http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/1997-2000/com08/tiff-fx/send2.html. > >I believe it meets your requrest. > > > >Regards, > >-- > >Hiroshi Tamura, Co-chair of IETF-FAX WG > >E-mail: tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > John Perkins > Exfax Technologies Pty Ltd > PO Box 6004 Melbourne Australia 3004 > Tel +61 3 9534 5495 Fax +61 3 9534 8994 > http://www.exfax.com > -------------------------------------------------------- >