Subject: ITU and IETF efforts

From: Anders Borg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 18:52:45 +0200

Hi,

To enable me to quickly get up to speed on current developments
(probably this has been discussed to death already, but I'm too
lazy to go through all the postings :o) ):
- Is there a tendency that devices/software will support only T.37
Simple Mode, Full Mode or T.38, or is the trend (or
recommendation) rather that they will/should support them all?
- Has there been issued a deadline for T.37 and T.38 respectively?
- The fax charter Web lists numerous specifications, above and
beyond what is listed in T.37. Is there aavailable a summary list
of status for those? Any summarizing document that describes the
relation and subset/superset character of them?

Thanks,
Anders Borg - Business Unit Manager
Axis Communications AB
Scheelevaegen 16
S-223 70 LUND, SWEDEN
Email: [email-masked]
Phone: +46 46 270 18 41
Fax: +46 46 13 61 30
Axis: http://www.axis.com
Products: http://www.axis.com/products
Personal: http://www.torget.se/users/a/andersb/

---

From: Dan Wing <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 10:32:02 -0700

>recommendation) rather that they will/should support them all?

ITU T.37 = RFC2301 through RFC2305 = fax-over-email.

What the ITU calls "full mode" is not yet completely defined by the
ITU itself, in my opinion (specifically, the definition of "terminal"
is insufficiently precise).  

The IETF is moving forward with draft-ietf-fax-eifax as the next
generation of fax (beyond RFC2305).

ITU T.38 is a completely different technology from T.37/RFC2305.
T.38 uses H.323 and establishes a realtime connection with the remote 
fax machine.  H.323 is primarily used by voice-over-IP gateways, and
allows realtime transmission of voice, video, and data.

I would not expect a product to support both T.38 and T.37/RFC2305,
but there is nothing to prevent an implementation from supporting
both technologies.

>- Has there been issued a deadline for T.37 and T.38 respectively?

I'll let Herman answer this one.

>relation and subset/superset character of them?

The agenda for the last IETF meeting is probably the best place
for such information.  See 
<http://www.imc.org/ietf-fax/mail-archive/2455.html>.

-Dan Wing

---

From: "Herman R. Silbiger" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 18:55:12 -0400

Since Dan Wing has answered some of your questions I will give you the answers on T.37 Full Mode and T.38.  

T.37 Simple Mode and T.38 have been approved and are available at http://www.itu.int/itudoc/itu-t/approved/t.html.  T.37 Full Mode is being drafted.  It will be discussed at the November Q.4/8 Rapporteur's meeting.  If, in the opinion of the attendees, it is sufficiently advanced it could be determined to be ready for approval in March, 1999.  

The T.38 that has been approved contains the protocol to transfer Group 3 faxes in real time over the internet.  An Annex B, describing call control using H.323 for fax only gateways, is due to be approved in March, 1999.  An Annex D to H.323, describing call control for combined voice and fax gateways, is slated for approval this month.

Herman Silbiger
Rapporteur, ITU-T Q.4/8.

----------
From:  Dan Wing [SMTP:[email-masked]]
Sent:  Wednesday, September 09, 1998 1:32 PM
To:  [email-masked]
Cc:  [email-masked]
Subject:  RE: ITU and IETF efforts

-Dan Wing

---

From: Anders Borg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 18:00:41 +0200

> ITU T.37 = RFC2301 through RFC2305 = fax-over-email.

As RFC2301 seems to cover RFC2306 too: Is 2306 not considered
right now, or 2301 refers to or incorporates it?

> allows realtime transmission of voice, video, and data.

Has eifax any relation to T.38?

/Anders

---

From: Dan Wing <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 9:32:40 -0700

>right now, or 2301 refers to or incorporates it?

RFC2306 is only informational.  RFC2301 is a proposed standard.  
RFC2301's description of "Tiff Profile S" is supposed to be the same
as RFC2306.

Colloquially, RFC2306 = TIFF-F, RFC2301 = TIFF-FX = TIFF-PLUS.

>Has eifax any relation to T.38?

None at all.

See draft-ietf-fax-ipfax-00.txt which is, I believe, what eventually
became T.38.  I haven't been following T.38.

-Dan Wing

---

From: "McIntyre, Lloyd" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 17:03:57 PDT

Some minor additions and corrections to Dan's feedback below.

Lloyd

> -----Original Message-----
> Sent:	Thursday, September 10, 1998 9:33 AM
> To:	[email-masked]
> Cc:	[email-masked]
	[McIntyre, Lloyd]  Yes RFC2301 does incorporate RFC2306.

> RFC2301's description of "Tiff Profile S" is supposed to be the same
	[McIntyre, Lloyd]  It is RFC2301's description of "TIFF-FX
Profile F" that is supposed to be the same as RFC2306.
> Colloquially, RFC2306 = TIFF-F, RFC2301 = TIFF-FX = TIFF-PLUS.
	[McIntyre, Lloyd]  RFC2301 = TIFF-FX. The term TIFF-PLUS was
used during early draft submission and we have been desperately trying
to get rid of it.