Subject: RE: No description for image/tiff in Impl-Guide

From: "Hastings, Tom N" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 19:40:07 -0800

Sorry for the late comments on the Implementer's Guide and referencing other
documents and containing conformance language.  My comments may be too late.

As I understand it the 'Implementers Guide for Facsimile Using Internet
Mail' <draft-ietf-fax-implementers-guide-07.txt> was approved by the IESG
for publication as an Informational RFC on November 15, 2001.  So are we
talking about an update of that document, i.e., another RFC that would
Obsolete the first one?  Or if the Editor's queue is long, perhaps the
updated document will be approved by the IESG for publication before the
first one is assigned an RFC number?

My understanding is that Informational RFCs, such as the Implementers Guide,
can refer to Internet-Drafts, while RFCs on the standards track cannot make
normative references to Internet-Drafts (they are held up until such
normative references become RFCs as well).  In other words, all references
from an Information RFC are, by definition, non-normative.

I also understand that Informational RFCs shouldn't have the UPPERCASE
conformance language in them, such as MUST, MAY, and SHOULD, since they are
only explaining things.  So the Implementer's Guide should use lower case
must, may, and should.  Also, the Implementer's Guide could say "RFC xxxx
recommends that image/tiff be used ..."  or perhaps, "according to RFC xxxx
image/tiff should be used ...".  However, I may be being too fussy here on
this last point.

Tom Hastings

-----Original Message-----
From: Hiroshi Tamura [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 14:54
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: No description for image/tiff in Impl-Guide

Hallo Claudio.

> Now that there will be TWO separated image/tiff and image/tiff-fx MIME 
> sub-types, I believe the Implementers guide should at least point out that
> image/tiff is for some profiles only and the image/tiff-fx should be used 
> for the other profiles. Implementers must be VERY aware of this fact, and 
> he Implementers guide must poit it out. Thus some revision seems
necessary.

Yes, it is better. But, a question.

As we already know, the IETF Last Call finished.
The I-D is already in RFC-editors' queue. But, "image/tiff-fx" itself is not
standardized, i.e., it is not in RFC, although most of us already agreed to
it.

Although it is for informational RFC, if the guide addresses "image/tiff"
and
"image/tiff-fx", do we have to wait until draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-reg-01.txt
or
draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-11.txt **become** RFC, 

Or, is it possible to include it before it?

--
Hiroshi Tamura, Ricoh Company, LTD.
E-mail: [email-masked]

---

From: Hiroshi Tamura <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 15:44:02 +0900 (JST)

Tom,

> first one is assigned an RFC number?

This is the peculiar process, if my understanding is right.
The exception. Though I was not at our SLC meeting, our group agreed to
check all the related RFCs and I-Ds for TIFF-FX at the meeting.

In the meantime, we agreed in ML that the use of image/tiff and image/tiff-fx
should be written in the guide.

Anyway, it will be assigned an RFC number along with the tiff-fx-reg I-D
under WG last call.