Subject: [IETF-FAX] Draft letter to ITU-T

From: Hiroshi Tamura <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 15:34:18 +0900 (JST)

Folks,

The draft letter is below. ITU-T meeting starts on Feb 5.
I have to send it to the rapporteur by the end of next week.
If there are comments, please do soon. If possible, I would like to
collect them by Jan 30(GMT) and circulate the final one on Jan 31.
Sorry for the tight deadline.

Please note that there is one paragraph in which John, Ned and Patrik
already confirmed the content with regard to IPR issue.
It starts with "The IAB does not make ---". 

Regards,
--
Hiroshi Tamura, Co-chair of IETF-FAX WG
E-mail: [email-masked]

---------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE:	Communication from IETF FAX Working Group

CONTACT:
Hiroshi Tamura (Co-chair of IETF FAX WG)	Tel:	+81-46-228-1743
Ricoh Co., Ltd.					Fax:	+81-46-228-7500
2446 Toda, Atsugi, Kanagawa, 243-0023, JAPAN	E-mail:	[email-masked]

APPROVED BY:
FAX Working Group with Claudio Allocchio (Co-chair of IETF FAX WG)

 --------

This letter is to nofity the current status of IETF FAX Working Group,
with regard to TIFF-FX, Implementers Guide and Terminal Mode that ITU-T
commented in the communication of SG16 meeting in June 2001.

1 TIFF-FX

Fax WG has been trying to move it to Draft Standard for long years.
Last year there were IPR and compatiblity issues that our group
had to solve before that.

1.1 IPR
The IPR issue was claimed by Adobe (TIFF holder) about TIFF itself.
Adobe was one of the contributors of TIFF-FX, but changed the stance
for the use of TIFF. Fax WG and IESG (Internet Engineering Steering
Group - managing WGs) asked IAB (Internet Architecture Board -
IETF's oversight body) for consultation.

At the Dec. 2001 IETF meeting, IAB, ISEG and WG reached the consensus
that Adobe's claims were regard as inconsistent with the mailing lists
records. FAX WG agreed to the Draft Stadard process, as usual.

The IAB does not make formal decisions about IPR issues. As a matter
of fact, it appears clear that Adobe authorized the uses in TIFF-FX, 
and lately sent out communication which might either mean they changed
their mind about the previous authorization, or now they intend to 
restrict these uses all along. In any case, the timing of their latter
actions appears to be against the common practice of reasonable people,
and violating both the letter of RFC 2026 and what are normally considered 
good industry practices. The IETF believes that one cannot violate a 
patent, or, in general, licensing provisions, by standardizing a 
technology, but eventually only by using that technology. The IETF FAX
WG concluded that TIFF-FX technologies have been implemented and deployed
without effective interference from Adobe, and thus there is no bar,
under IETF procedures, to moving the specification to Draft Standard status.

Regarding the IPR issue, the Application Area Directors (members of IESG:
Ned Freed and Patrik Faltstrom), in agreement with the IETF FAX WG,
have also declared in the above paragraph.

1.2 Compatibility
The other issue is compatibility one for the use of image/tiff MIME
content type for Profile J (JBIG), C (Color), L (JBIG color) and M (MRC)
for some TIFF readers. Therefore, our group has decided to use two MIME
content-types, the current image/tiff for Profile S (MH) and F (MR, MMR)
and a new image/tiff-fx content-type for other Profiles,
when transported by MIME.

The internet-draft "draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-reg-01.txt" describes the
new content-type and the registration. Also, there are two internet-drafts:
draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-11.txt (TIFF-FX specification itself) and
draft-ietf-fax-tiff-regbis-04.txt (TIFF registration).

The IETF December meeting agreed that the target date for TIFF-FX to be approved
as Draft Standard is September 2002. FAX WG is now trying to move the process.

Fax WG understands that T.37 refer some related RFCs. Therefore,
after the new documents are approved, our group will submit it to ITU-T.

2 Implementers Guide

The internet-draft was already approved by IESG and was in RFC-editors'
queue (i.e. waiting for publication) before December meeting.
But, as the above, our group has decided to use the two content-types
for the file format. As the result, our group agreed that the use of
content-types should also be described in the guide. Now, there is
a updated internet-draft "draft-ietf-fax-implementers-guide-08.txt",
which includes the description and refer "draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-reg-01.txt".

The guide is still in RFC-editors' queue. The RFC number will be
assigned along with "draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-reg-01.txt".

FAX WG understands that T.37 appendix will refer the Implementers Guide.
After the RFC number is assigned, our group will submit it to ITU-T.

3 Terminal Mode

There are several internet-drafts that relate to Terminal Mode.
But, unfortunately, there were no discussion for long months.
As a IETF general rule, with few support, it cannot be standarized.
Therefore, FAX WG dropped the discussion and removed it in our milestone.

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 11:09:56 +0100

Ok.

  paf

--On 2002-01-26 15.34 +0900 Hiroshi Tamura <[email-masked]> wrote:

> and violating both the letter of RFC 2026 and what are normally
> considered  good industry practices. The IETF believes that one cannot
> violate a  patent, or, in general, licensing provisions, by standardizing
> a  technology, but eventually only by using that technology. The IETF FAX
> new content-type and the registration. Also, there are two
> internet-drafts: draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-11.txt (TIFF-FX specification
> itself) and
> The IETF December meeting agreed that the target date for TIFF-FX to be
> approved as Draft Standard is September 2002. FAX WG is now trying to
> move the process.
>

---

From: Hiroshi Tamura <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 09:18:27 +0900 (JST)

To all:

There were no comments in our ML. But, in fact, there was a request
to modify about the IPR issue. Normally, we cannot do anything
unless he/she says in ML. But, there was something to consider and
this issue is the critical issue for the people concerned.
Thus, I accepted some points.

It may not be fair, but, please understand the situation.
I'm sorry that it is not well-managed.

I also changed in the last paragraph regarding T.37 in TIFF-FX.

Also, it is impossible to prepare the letter which all our members
can agree to. Please accept the new version below,
if there are not apparently wrong descriptions.

Also, I would like to say to thank Patrik and Claudio for their help.

Regards,

CONTACT:

APPROVED BY:

 --------

1 TIFF-FX

1.1 IPR

At the Dec. 2001 IETF meeting, IAB, ISEG and WG reached the consensus
that Adobe's claims were regard as inconsistent with the records of
the IETF meetings and the mailing lists of the WG.
FAX WG agreed to the Draft Stadard process, as usual.

As a matter of policy, the IESG does not evaluate IPR claims. 
There was some confusion about the nature of the claims and how
to deal with the situation. The IESG and IAB consulted about this,
and based on their evaluation of the situation, encouraged FAX WG
to continue progressing the documents and submit them for appropriate
consideration to the IESG as soon as they appear to be ready,
without delay due to IPR claims around TIFF.

1.2 Compatibility

Fax WG understands that T.37 refer some related RFCs and there are
some concerns about them. Fax WG, along with IESG and IAB, are now trying
to resolve those issues. Our group believes that the status of T.37 is not
changed. But, the reference should be changed after the new RFC documents
are approved. At that time, Fax WG will submit them to ITU-T.

2 Implementers Guide

3 Terminal Mode

---

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 17:00:06 -0800

Hiroshi,

Is the letter below expected to resolve the problem obliquely described as

  "ITU-T T.37 distribution was suspended pending Copyright aspects
resolution"

at

http://www.itu.int/rec/recommendation.asp?type=folders&lang=e&parent=T-REC-T.
37

?

Or is an additional copyright issue with T.37 or the referenced documents,
beyond the IPR in the letter below?

-d

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
> Behalf Of Hiroshi Tamura
> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 4:18 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [IETF-FAX] Draft letter to ITU-T
>
>
>
> To all:
>

---

From: Hiroshi Tamura <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 10:39:13 +0900 (JST)

Dan,

Thanks for your information.

> http://www.itu.int/rec/recommendation.asp?type=folders&lang=e&parent=T-REC-T.

I did not know that the distribution was suspended.
I hope the letter will help it. But, it may not be enough.

I hear John is now trying for all the related issue. (Thanks.)
After that, we should let ITU-T know the result again.

In the last paragraph of TIFF-FX, I change to:

  Unfortunately, the T.37 distribution is suspended in the ITU-T web-site.
  Fax WG understands that T.37 refer some related RFCs and
  there are some concerns about them. Fax WG, along with IESG and IAB,
  are now trying to resolve those issues. Our group believes that
  the status of T.37 is not changed.

  Anyway, Fax WG will let ITU-T know the final result. Also, the reference
  should be changed after the new RFC documents are approved.
  At that time, our group will submit them to ITU-T.

> beyond the IPR in the letter below?

No.

Anyway, thanks, Dan.

Regards,

---

From: "MAEDA Toru" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 18:23:29 +0100

Hi, All.

I put comments in below as the editor of ITU-T T.37.

Regards.

Toru Maeda

>   the status of T.37 is not changed.

The statement of the status is not clear.
Do you mean that T.37 suspended status is not changed?

>   At that time, our group will submit them to ITU-T.

After the new RFC documents are approved in IETF,
the references in T.37 will be updated based on the IETF communication,
then T.37 will be took procedure for concent in ITU-T.

-- 
***********************************
MAEDA TORU
Canon Research Centre France S.A.
***********************************

---

From: Hiroshi Tamura <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 07:34:26 +0900 (JST)

MAEDA san,

Thanks for your comment.

> Do you mean that T.37 suspended status is not changed?

No. Sorry for my confusion. I wanted to say T.37 can continue to be used.
I change to:

Our group believes that T.37 is valid.

Again, thanks.

Within a few hours, I will submit to ITU-T.

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