Subject: Draft Communication 1 to ITU (Please Review)

From: James Rafferty <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 15:29:49 -0400

Folks,    

I have prepared a draft response to the 1st ITU communication.   It is 
based on a summary of the discussions to date from the August meeting and 
on the list.    

The next ITU meeting is next week and I would like to finalize this
response ASAP.    Ideally, they would like all contributions submitted by 
the end of day tomorrow.   This is not a contribution, but once final, I
will send it
to the contact point (Maeda-san) and the Q4 rapporteur (Herman Silbiger)
for review 
at the meeting next week.   

If you feel changes are needed, please speak up and propose revisions.   

If you support the communication as is, feel free to say so.  If 
no comments are received either way or its positive, I will send it out at
the end 
of day tomorrow (Tuesday).   If revisions are needed, I'll send it out
as soon as we have agreement.   

Thanks,   

James

The draft communication follows:    

To:   Rapporteur,  Study Group 8, Question 4

From:   Chair, IETF Internet Fax Working Group   

Subject:   Response to Communication on Full Mode

We are writing in response to the communication from the March-April Study
Group 
8 meeting regarding aspects of the full mode.    

It is our understanding that the Amendment 1 to T.37 which will reference the 
extended mode RFCs 2530-2532 is up for approval in the September 1999
meeting of 
Study Group 8.    We hope that this amendment which realizes the "Full Mode" 
will be approved.   We have submitted some additional supporting reference 
documents as contributions from The Internet Society.    

In the last communication, there were items 2.1-2.4 which addressed various 
matters.   Your request and our response for each of these points follows:   

2.1.    Request - In RFC2532, the MDN/DSN request has no means to indicate
precisely to the receiver, that the sender desires to have capabilities
returned with MDN/DSN response.  This situation is difficult for the
facsimile application, since the capabilities of the receiver is
required for the Full Mode sender before transmitting a TIFF-FX file.
Since the existing capabilities exchange mechanism uses MDN and DSN
facilities, further enhancements to this method are high priority for
us.

Response:   We have discussed this item and want to note the following.
First, 
the current specification (RFC 2532) indicates an extended mode fax receiver 
SHOULD send capability information in response to a request for confirmation, 
and within IETF specifications, SHOULD is a very strong requirement, and
should 
not be disregarded without a very good reason.   However, 
we understand that you would like enhancements to this method.   There has
been 

discussion in the working group on possibilities for such enhancements.
Two 
members of the working group have made proposals on ways to enhance this
method 
to cover cases where the sender has the capability to send the content using 
different TIFF-FX (RFC 2301) profiles or different sets of capabilities.   We 
have encouraged them to collaborate on an Internet Draft.  We will keep you 
posted on any related progress.     

2.2  Request - 2.2    The fax processed status information in RFC2530 needs
to 
be enhanced. We need a facility to enable the total number of pages and
pages in error to be returned to the sender in a MDN to indicate
successful processing.  We need further precision on the fax status
information using DSN and/or MDN.

Response - This request falls into the category of potential enhancements
to the 
content of DSN/MDN messages, evidently on the matter of processing results.
   
At the July IETF meeting, there was some discussion in our working group and 
informally among fax, voice and email experts about the potential for further 
enhancements to MDNs.     The general feeling is that reasonable enhancements 
need to be proposed and can then be considered.   This could take the form of 
extensions to RFC 2298.    Related Internet Drafts are invited and would
need to 
be discussed on the fax list, and also among voice and email experts in the 
IETF.   

2.3    Request - Similarly the specification within RFC2298 for the value 
processed need to be enhanced. We need further precision to ensure that the
specific MDN response that is generated clearly indicates that the MIME
body part(s) has been successfully processed (i.e. printed or
displayed).

Response - As noted for item 2.2 above, there was some informal activity at
the 
July IETF meeting among fax, email and voice experts related to this item.
 The 
general feeling was that the development of enhancements to the MDN to
provide 
greater detail on the results of individual attachments to a message,
especially 
for multi-part structures, is an enhancement that would be beneficial for 
several applications.    Interested people have been invited to develop an 
Internet Draft which contains such enhancements for discussion within the
fax, 
voice and email communities of IETF.    No draft has been produced to date.

2.4   Request - We request further study and a more complete solution on
mechanisms for capabilities request and indication that can be used to
meet  the Internet fax requirements for capability exchange.

Response - As noted in the response to item 2.1, there are some working group 
members who have ideas on making enhancements to the current methods as 
specified in RFC 2530-2532.    There is also a group of IETF experts who have 
been involved in a Resource Capabilities "Birds of a Feather" activity.   The 
draft charter of this potential working group has targeted the development of 
methods that will enable a requestor to resolve to a list of capabilities
that 
are supported for a specific Internet address, such as a Uniform Resource 
Locator.   However, this prospective working group has not yet been
chartered, 
so there is no specific timetable for 
development of such facilities.   

For your information, there are some remaining charter items for the working 
group which you may find of interest.    We are planning on completing work
this 
Fall to progress the current RFCs for the Simple Mode (RFC 2301-2305) to the 
"draft standard" level.    There are some interworking tests that are still 
needed to complete this step, primarily with respect to support for the RFC 
2303/2304 methods of Offramp addressing using a minimal set of PSTN elements 
within email addresses.   The working group is also actively developing a
draft 
for support of fax cover pages, which is targeted as a proposed standard.
 In 
addition, there are drafts in progress of an informative nature which would 
address:  1)  An Internet Fax Implementor's Guide, and 2) A Mapping of T.30
to 
the Fax Feature Schema (per RFC 2531).    We will also plan to inform you
in the 
event that new RFCs are issued which may have an impact on the references 
contained within the T.37 recommendation.    

*------------------------------------------------*
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 16:39:16 -0400

>as soon as we have agreement.   
I did not get any requests for revisions, so I am sending the 
communication out as is.  

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