Subject: Draft Communication 2 to the ITU

From: James Rafferty <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 17:47:31 -0400

Folks,   

This is a draft of the response to the second communication from the ITU
on synchronization.    

The text is in two sections.   The first part goes through 4 types of cases 
and how they might be handled.  This is what we have been reviewing
on the list (and at the July WG meeting).   

The second part discusses how to proceed going forward with the ITU 
cooperation as the current Fax WG concludes its work.   I am proposing that
the WG
will do planning on this situation as part of its shut down planning.   

The IETF/ITU cooperation has gone pretty well and I think we will want to 
try to keep a communications channel open.  So, the memo says
we will work on figuring out a plan to do this.  

Please provide me with feedback on the draft communication as soon as you
can.   
Once we are in agreement, I will send it out.   Given the tight deadlines,
if there is not much 
feedback by the end of day tomorrow, I will assume its OK to go ahead and
send it out as is.   

Best Regards,   

James Rafferty 
Chair, IETF Fax WG

The text of the draft communication follows.   

To:   Rapporteur, Study Group 8, Question 4

From:   Chair, IETF Internet Fax Working Group   

Subject:   Response to Communication on Synchronization 

We are writing in response to the communication from the March-April Study
Group 
8 meeting regarding synchronization between Group 3 facsimile and the IETF 
Internet Fax RFCs.   The dynamics of fax technology and the Internet mean
that 
there will also be some situations where new standards or revisions from one 
organization are not yet fully reflected in the standards of the other 
organization.   However, for the specific case of T.30 and its revisions, we 
have some ideas on how to proceed, depending upon the situation.  These are 
presented below.      

Later in this memo, we also review the plans for completing the work of the
IETF 
working group and discuss the need to maintain communications between the
IETF 
and ITU fax activities going forward.        

Synchronization of New Features

As new features are added to the T.30 recommendation, if they result in 
enhancements to the types of images or paper handling that are provided,
there 
may also be a need to update or extended IETF Internet Fax RFCs.   We have 
reviewed several possible situations and provide our ideas on the best way to 
proceed for these instances.    

1. The case where a Revision to T.30 results in a need for new fax feature
tags - The Content Negotiations 

(Conneg) working group of the IETF has already developed a set of rules on
how to add new Media Feature 
tags to the Conneg framework.    An example for this kind of case up is the
pending
change to add support for "double sided printing" to T.30 (targeted for
approval
in February 2000). 

The rules for establishing new media tags in the Conneg framework have been
specified in RFC 2506.     
This Best Current Practices (BCP) document defines multiple trees that can
be used for media features, 
which include the IETF tree and the Global tree.   The IETF tree is the one
that has been used for the fax 
feature schema work that was standardized in RFC 2531.    

In discussion among the Fax working group members, the group concluded that
new fax media features 
tags should be added to the IETF tree and be handled per the rules for that
tree.    

The relevant section of RFC 2506 says:   

"The IETF tree is intended for media feature tags of general interest
   to the Internet Community, and proposals for these tags must meet the
   "IETF Consensus" policies described in [5].

   Registration in the IETF tree requires approval by the IESG and
   publication of the feature tag specification as an RFC.  Submissions
   for feature tag registration in the IETF tree can originate in any WG
   of the IETF or as an individual submission to the IESG."   

-  Note that the citation [5] above is:
[5] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA 
Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998.

This implies that the new fax feature tags would need to be defined in an
RFC as
well as registered with IANA. To the extent the Fax WG or a successor fax 
oriented WG is in place, these kind of changes could be done within this WG, 
with consultation with the ITU as well.   It would be useful as well to have 
consultation with Conneg experts within IETF (which may or may not be in an 
active WG). 

If there is not an active IETF fax WG, there is likely to be a related
mailing 
list of people who continue to be interested in IETF issues related to fax.  
Related Internet drafts as individual submissions could be produced and
reviewed 
on such a list; t would also be possible to have IETF Birds of a Feather 
meetings for a small set of issues.   

2)  Case 2 - Adding New values for existing fax feature tags (based on
approved amendments
to T.30).    

In this instance, a more streamlined  process  may be possible to update
valid values
and the IANA registry.   There is already a situation which appears to fit
this case.   .  
Last April, new resolutions were approved for Black and White fax documents

within Group 3 facsimile.  

The alternatives would for handling this case would seem to be:  

1.  Update the fax feature schema doc (RFC 2531) to include the new
resolutions; 
if there were other reasons as well to amend the document, it could be
recycled 
as proposed.  
2.  Do a fax feature schema extensions draft which updates RFC 2531 and 
updates the IANA registrations to add new legal values; then later
combine both into a consolidated draft std.   

In further discussion, it was pointed out that in the particular case of
new resolutions, the only parts 
which would need to be changed are the examples which are non-normative:
the normative 
framework can already accommodate new resolution values. Therefore,the
publication of a new 
informational document with updated examples could be sufficient (together
with an update to the 
informational T.30 mapping document).

If a Fax WG and / or conneg WG was not available to review such extensions, 
an IANA registration could be prepared (if needed) to propose extensions in
values.  
If extensions did need to be reviewed for revisions to the IETF tree in the
IANA registry, 
this would require review from a designated IETF expert (s) per RFC 2506.   

3)  Case 3 - Revision to T.30 attributes which may affect TIFF (RFC 2301)
profiles

There are 2 cases here, which is analogous to the situation for 
feature tags.  

a.   Use existing fields, but add to the list of legal values

This is the simpler case where only the permitted values for an existing field
would need to change, but there are no TIFF structural changes or
needs for new TIFF fields.   

However, to date, the method for making such changes would
appear to entail the production of an RFC by either a WG or via the IETF
consensus
process.   

There is currently no IANA registration for TIFF at any level below the 
"image/tiff" MIME media type.  To our knowledge, Adobe is still
the TIFF custodian which would review new fields and sign off
on the new tag numbers to avoid duplicate assignments.   

This indicates that the likely approach is via the creation of RFCs in IETF
and/or 
normative documents by the ITU which essentially extend
RFC 2301 as the approach for adding support for new values.  

Case b.  

This instance is where a change to T.30 creates the need for new TIFF
fields or
has major TIFF structural implications that go well beyond RFC 2301.  

This is similar to the case where there is a need to create new feature
tags.  
An example case here is the pending addition of JBIG-2 compression 
support to T.30 using new MRC profiles, none of which have yet 
been  defined in RFC 2301.   This probably requires the definition of new
TIFF fields and a careful consideration of the relationship between the 
related fields.   

If a Fax WG or related IETF mailing list is available, this would be the
place 
to review such changes.   It would appear that revisions of this nature 
would require something like a  new TIFF extensions RFC.   

If no Fax WG is available, the specification work on extensions could
conceivably be done by another experts group  such as the ITU SG8.  
However, it would seem that at minimum there would need to be 
consultation with a designated IETF expert or related mailing list.  If the
work
was substantial enough, this might provide the justification for a newly
chartered
Internet fax working group with an appropriate set of milestones.   

4) Case 4 - This is a case where no change to the feature schema is
required and possibly 
only the informative T.30 mapping document needs to be updated.

This is a simple case where the current framework suffices, but there may
be a need to add new examples
which illustrate the extended case.    This work can be done in either the
IETF or the ITU by 
creating informative material (T.30 mapping, implementor's guide, or ITU
appendices).   

Ongoing Communication and Cooperation with the ITU Fax Questions

The majority of work that was originally included in the charter of the
Internet 

Fax working group is basically complete.   There are a few small milestones 
which are targeted for completion by the end of year 1999, as noted in our
other 
communication to Question 4.   In the normal course of operation within the 
IETF, a working group closes at the point when its charter is complete.   The 
Internet Fax working group is now at a point where it needs to finalize its 
plans to complete its work and address any other related issues.   

The working group and the ISOC/IETF management have been pleased with the 
results of the cooperation between ISOC/IETF and the ITU in the area of
Internet 
fax, which has resulted in the completion of several Internet Fax RFCs and
the 
T.37 recommendation.    As noted in the discussion above, it is inevitable
that 
there will be some situations where maintenance and enhancement of the
already 
completed standards will be needed.   Ideally, this will involve appropriate 
consultation between the relevant IETF and ITU experts when such changes are 
needed.   In the IETF, we recognize that there is value in having an ongoing 
communications with the ITU as fax and Internet fax technology and standards 
evolve.    

We are also aware that the ITU itself is beginning to plan its reorganization 
for the next four year period.   Therefore, one of the current challenges for 
both the IETF and the ITU will be to find a way to maintain an effective 
communications channel as the fax work within the two organizations is re-
organized or otherwise revised.   

We have not yet had a chance to discuss this issue in detail within the IETF, 
although there has been some informal discussions on related matters among
the 
IETF Internet fax chair, the area directorate and some interested working
group 
members.   Therefore, as part of the plan to complete the work of the IETF 
Internet Fax working group as currently chartered, we will plan to work
with the 
IESG Applications Area Directors and the ISOC VP of Standards to determine
the 
best method within the context of IETF procedures for:  

1. Maintaining a communications channel with the ITU fax questions for 
discussion and maintenance of related standards, and 
2. Defining the likely IETF focal point for future related work (for example, 
on whether to re-charter a new Internet Fax WG with a different focus, 
suspend the WG or take some other action).   

We will plan to communicate informally and via communications as such plans 
evolve.   In turn, we would appreciate it if the ITU will keep the IETF area 
directors and ISOC VP of Standards up to date on reorganization developments 
related to the fax questions within the ITU.   

*------------------------------------------------*
James Rafferty			
President, Human Communications LLC
12 Kevin Drive			
Danbury, CT  06811-2901		
USA					
Voice/Fax:  +1-203-746-4367
Fax to email:  +1-603-925-5753  (Current Preferred Fax Number)
Email/Internet Fax:  [email-masked]
Alternate email : [email-masked],
 [email-masked] (chg from csi.com)

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

---

From: James Rafferty <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 16:39:09 -0400

>This is a draft of the response to the second communication from the ITU
I only received one comment to date on this communication 2, as Graham
Klyne added a useful suggestion on one of the methods which would
be available for defining new fax feature tags.  I'll note the suggestion
and provide a 
change to text as noted below:   

>meetings for a small set of issues. 

Graham added that a group of experts (including ITU participants) could 
prepare a draft for review by the IESG.    This is true and might be 
a practical approach under some circumstances.   So, revising the text of the
second paragraph to 
include this produces the following:   

"If there is not an active IETF fax WG, there is likely to be a related 
mailing list of people who continue to be interested in IETF issues related
to fax. 
Related Internet drafts as individual submissions could be produced and 
reviewed on such a list; it would also be possible to have IETF Birds of a
Feather 
meetings for a small set of issues.  In addition, it would also be possible
for a group of 
experts from an external group (which could include ITU participants) to
produce an 
Internet Draft for IESG review."

Since there is no other feedback to date and we have had a fair amount of
previous 
discussion, I will make this one change and then send the communication 2 out
today to the Q4 Rapporteur (Herman Silbiger) and the designated contact for 
the prior communication (Dave Crocker).   

I'll plan to keep the WG posted on the results of any related 
discussions at next weeks meeting.    

James Rafferty
IETF Internet Fax Chair