Subject: [Fax] Brief Status Report on ITU-T SG8 Meeting

From: James Rafferty <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 17:54:32 -0300

Folks,   

Dave Crocker and I went to the ITU-T Study Group 8 meeting in Geneva during
the past 2 weeks as representatives of the Internet Society.    

As you may have seen, ad-hoc groups at that meeting produced 2
"communications" directed to our WG based on work done in ITU-T SG8,
Question 4, which deals with Internet fax matters.   Dave and I
participated in both of the ad-hoc groups that produced these notes.
Discussion on those items is best handled on the separate threads that have
already started up.   

The purpose of this note is just to give the WG a quick overview of the
results of the SG8 meeting as they pertain to our group.   

On behalf of ISOC/IETF, I submitted the 3 extended fax RFCs as
contributions:  RFC 2530-2532.   In the work of the T.37 ad-hoc group, the
technical experts accepted these documents for reference in Amendment 1 to
T.37 and these were also accepted by Question 4.   The T.37 ad-hoc also
produced a table which cross referenced between full mode functions and the
related references in IETF RFCs.   This table and related notes were
submitted and accepted as an informative appendix to T.37.    So, in
essence, the technical experts of SG8 agreed to support definition of the
T.37 full mode using the references to the 3 extended mode RFCs.   In
addition, some items that could benefit from further study were noted and
these have been summarized in one of the "communications" to our WG.    

However, the ITU decision process  for a recommendation requires acceptance
in both the Question (in this case Q4) and at the Study Group level.   In
the SG8 plenary meeting, two delegations (the US and Germany) had some
procedural concerns about the fairly large number of RFC references that
are included both in T.37 itself and in the 3 extended fax RFCs.
Therefore, these 2 countries have invoked a "4 week rule", which enables a
country to take 4 additional weeks to study the recommendation up for
approval before casting a yes or no vote.  There was no other opposition
expressed to the T.37 amendment at this meeting.     As a result, the final
decision on the Amendment 1 to T.37 will be dependent upon the results of
the further review by these two countries.   

I certainly have hopes that these two countries will join the other ITU
members in approving T.37 Amendment 1, but they will have this additional
time to make their decision.    

As soon as I have further information on the results of the decision
process, I will let the WG know.    

From my own perspective, the cooperation between ISOC/IETF and the ITU
continues to be positive and constructive.  

I think we should take a close look at the further study items mentioned in
the communications and then decide what impact they may have on our work
plans, milestones, etc.    

That's all for now.  Please feel free to send me questions or comments as
needed.   

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: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 1999 21:39:37 +0800

>the further review by these two countries.

Are there any suggestions, for constructive actions that folks in the U.S. 
or Germany can pursue, to help their representative reach a supportive 
position?

d/

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker                                         Tel: +1 408 246 8253
Brandenburg Consulting                               Fax: +1 408 273 6464
675 Spruce Drive                             <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA                 <mailto:[email-masked]>