Subject: Protocol Action: Indicating Supported Media Features Using Extensions to DSN and MDN to Proposed Standard

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 09:44:30 -0500

The IESG has approved publication of the following Internet-Drafts as
Proposed Standards:

o Indicating Supported Media Features Using Extensions to DSN and MDN
	<draft-ietf-fax-reporting-extensions-05.txt>

o Content feature schema for Internet fax
	<draft-ietf-fax-feature-schema-05.txt> 

o Extended Facsimile Using Internet Mail
	<draft-ietf-fax-eifax-12.txt> 

These documents are the product of the Internet Fax Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Keith Moore and Patrik Faltstrom.

Technical Summary
 
 This set of documents, along with documents published earlier,
 defines an "extended" facsimile service based on Internet mail
 protocols, as compared to the "simple" facsimile service defined
 in RFC 2305. The extensions defined here allow additional features
 beyond those defined in simple facsimile, including delivery
 confirmation, processing (e.g. printing) confirmation, and
 discovery of recipient capabilities using the existing Delivery
 Status Notification (DSN) and Message Disposition Notification (MDN)
 standards.

Working Group Summary

 There was significant discussion as to how to preserve as much
 functionality as possible from the traditional telephone-based
 facsimile service, while still retaining compatibility with
 traditional Internet electronic mail software and protocols.

Protocol Quality

 Keith Moore reviewed the specification for IESG.

---

From: James Rafferty <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 11:58:22 -0500

Folks,   

>	<draft-ietf-fax-eifax-12.txt> 
Per the above notice, we have now achieved our second phase objectives for
the Internet fax WG by getting the "extended mode" drafts approved as
proposed standards.   .    

In a separate notice, the IESG also approved the publication of the "Goals
and Terminology" document as an informational RFC.   

My congrats and thanks to the authors for their hard work and persistance
in developing these documents and seeing them through the approval process.

This is also a solid achievement for the WG as a whole, since these
documents benefited from extensive comments and discussion over about a 9
month period.  
We also got useful feedback from the ITU as a result of two of their
meetings.    

Per our agreed plans, the extended mode RFCs (once published), will be
submitted to the ITU-T Study Group 8 as Internet Society contributions,
where they are targeted for inclusion by reference within an amendment to
T.37 to help realize the "full mode" for Internet fax.   The "decision"
meeting for the T.37 amendment begins on March 24.   

The stage is now set for the WG to do some final stage wrapup work over the
next 6 months or so, before the WG concludes.   Our immediate priority will
be to review the existing simple mode documents to see where editorial or
small fixes may be needed for them to either progress to draft standard
level or be recycled as proposed (if the level of changes warrant this).   

The other requirement for progression to draft standard is to document that
there are at least 2 interworking, independently developed implementations
of each proposed standard RFC.   

We do have the benefit of substantial implementation experience for RFC
2305 (the simple mode) and RFC 2301 (defining the 6 TIFF profiles for
Internet fax) . 
I believe we can spend a useful portion of our next meeting in reviewing
the level of implementations and the extent to which all features of these
documents have been included in implementations and tested for interworking.  

However, to my knowledge, there has not yet been much documented use of the
two RFCs (2303 and 2304), which define a syntax for offramp addressing.
This work is mainly of interest to offramp implementors.   I would
encourage companies or organizations which do plan to include an offramp
feature to include support for these RFCs and to let me know about it.    

We also discussed some other possible action items at our last meeting.
Shortly, I will plan to submit a list of proposed milestones to the
ietf-fax list based on these discussions.    

I expect this will be a short list of items.   Please feel free to continue
the discussion which has already begun on "next steps".   We can fine tune the
milestones in the time leading up to the Minneapolis meeting.    

Regards, 

James Rafferty
Chair, IETF Internet fax WG

*------------------------------------------------*
James Rafferty			
President, Human Communications LLC	
12 Kevin Drive			
Danbury, CT  06811-2901		
USA					
Voice/Fax:  +1-203-746-4367
Email/Internet Fax:  [email-masked]
	 [email-masked]
     [email-masked]

HC Web Site:  http://www.humancomm.com  
*---------------------------------------------------

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 12:37:28 -0600

>2305 (the simple mode) and RFC 2301 (defining the 6 TIFF profiles for

Does anyone have any additional implementation information on Mixed Raster
Content? 
I'm aware of only one.

>documents have been included in implementations and tested for interworking.  

RE: Next Step and Milestones.

I know we have discussed this in Orlando but, I would certainly support an
Informational or BCP RFC "Implementers Guide" brought forward as part of
our whole document package.

Would a Guide be part of the documentation of "at least 2" interworking
implementaitons or would that be a seperate document?

Will we need 2 Guides .. one for the simple mode and one for EIFAX?

Richard Shockey
Shockey Consulting LLC                  
8045 Big Bend Blvd. Suite 110    
St. Louis, MO 63119
Voice 314.918.9020
Fax   314.918.9015
INTERNET Mail & IFAX : [email-masked]
eFAX 815.333.1237  
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

---

From: James Rafferty <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 16:48:07 -0500

>Does anyone have any additional implementation information on Mixed Raster
There is a group of companies which has been doing interop testing on most, if
not all , of the profiles.   

>implementaitons or would that be a seperate document?
The reports on interoperable implementations would be separate.   Some
previously submitted reports for IETF WGs are contained at the following URL
(thks for Rob Buckley for this tip).  
<http://www.ietf.org/IESG/implementation.html>http://www.ietf.org/IESG/impl
ementation.html. 

>Will we need 2 Guides .. one for the simple mode and one for EIFAX?
I think it will depend upon how quickly companies begin to implement
extensions.  Right now, the experience base is being developed mainly for the
simple mode. 

James