Subject: FAX WG status

From: Hiroshi Tamura <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 19:17:19 +0900 (JST)

Folks,

We have a few remaing things to do. I comment them below,
according to the order of the SLC minutes.
I was not at the SLC meeting. So, if there are mistakes
or something, please let us know.
Also, any comments are appreciated.

1 Service (draft-ietf-fax-service-v2-05.txt)

We already have done for WG Last Call and IESG request.
There are few differences from the previous version.
Not technical, just trivial things.
No action is necessary. Only reference issue.

2 Content Negotiation (draft-ietf-fax-content-negotiation-05.txt)

The IETF last call finished. It is in RFC-editors' queue.
No action is necessary.

3 Timely Delivery (draft-ietf-fax-timely-delivery-05.txt)

The WG last call finished.
Claudio or I will request IETF last call to the IESG.

4 Fax Gateway (draft-ietf-fax-gateway-protocol-06.txt)
              (draft-ietf-fax-gateway-options-04.txt)

The WG last call finished. Last year I requested IETF last call.
It is in Ned's queue. After his review, we may do action.

5 FFPIM (draft-ietf-fax-ffpim-01.txt)

After Dave submits the new version, we can do WG last call.
The content has no problems, I think. We wait fot it.

6 ESMTP-CONNEG (draft-ietf-fax-esmtp-conneg-01.txt)

There was modification from the previous version. But, according to -01,
there seems to be no problems. If you agree to it, we can do WG last call.
Claudio or I will do it soon. 

7 Terminal mode issue (draft-maeda-faxwg-terminal-mode-goals-01.txt)
                      (draft-maeda-faxwg-terminal-mode-protocol-01.txt)
                      (draft-maeda-faxwg-fax-processing-status-01.txt)

We agree to the dropping from our milestone. This is the final notice.
If anything, please say it. Unless there are lots of support,
we should drop them.

8 TIFF-FX extension (draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-extension-1-01.txt)
                    (darft-mcintyre-feature-schema-extension1-00.txt)

Until the TIFF-FX itself is solved, there is no action.

9 Addressing issue (draft-allocchio-gstn-01.txt)

Claudio will submit the new version. We wait for it.

10 ITU-T

In the next month, the meeting is held. I will prepare the letter,
according to the result of SLC meeting.

11 TIFF-FX (draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-11.txt)

The difference is the description about the use of two content-types:
image/tiff and image/tiff-fx. There are no problems.
We should do WG Last Call as recycle ***Proposed Standard*** at first,
according to the result of the SLC meeting.

Claudio and Lloyd, Am I right?

12 TIFF registration (draft-ietf-fax-tiff-regbis-04.txt)

It is corrected for Magic Number issue. We can do WG last call as BCP.
Claudio or I will do it soon. 

13 TIFF-FX registration (draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-reg-01.txt)

It seems that there are no problems. We can do WG last call as BCP.
Claudio or I will do it soon. 
Also, the interoperability test will be necessary for Draft Standard.

14 Impl. Guide (draft-ietf-fax-implementers-guide.08.txt)

The content-type issue is reflected in it. The IETF Last Call is finished.
But, there is only one reference issue on draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-reg-01.txt.
So, I think the two I-D should be published at the same time,,,.
Is it true?

.........

BTW, Minneapolis meeting is coming. I think it is better
to have our meeting for the status confirmation,
although there are few things to discuss.

Claudio, what do you think about it?

I have been very busy these days. Please do not expect my early response.

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

---

From: "McIntyre, Lloyd" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 10:38:30 -0800

Tamura-san,
Please see my response below.

Regards,
Lloyd

> Until the TIFF-FX itself is solved, there is no action.
Based upon the section 8 entry,
"- TIFF-FX extension

on hold until relevant new documents are at a stable state. Maybe February
2002.",
there may be less potential for misunderstanding if this were stated as - no
action until relevant documents have obtained a level of stability. 

> according to the result of the SLC meeting.
This is not correct. 
Ned, our AD, has accepted an action to obtain IESG clarification as to
whether it is necessary to recycle TIFF-FX to Proposed Standard. A case may
be made that it is NOT necessary to recycle to Proposed Standard (i.e.
retain in current state of pending Last Call for Draft Standard) since there
were no file format features (i.e. encoding features) added to TIFF-FX.
  
Ned - what is the status with regard to IESG evaluation of the case? 
      It is essential that we obtain IESG clarification very soon, given the
January milestone for WG Last Call towards Proposed Standard and March
milestone for approval of Proposed Standard, which is essential if a
September milestone for approval of Draft Standard is to be realized.

> Also, the interoperability test will be necessary for Draft Standard.
This is basically correct, however, the last call should be for Proposed
Standard. WG Last Call should be issued very soon, given the mid-January
milestone.
> So, I think the two I-D should be published at the same time,,,.
I agree, with one small clarification. Maybe more appropriate to say
something like - the two I-Ds should be approved at the same time,,,.
> although there are few things to discuss.
Given the milestones below, I believe there will be a lot to discuss with
regard to TIFF-FX and image/tiff-fx registration progression to Draft
Standard.

At the March 2002 IETF meeting

- to have image/tiff published as BCP
- to have image/tiff-fx published as Proposed Standard
- to have the test report available

Mid June 2002

- issue the WG last call for image/tiff-fx registration and tiff-fx file 
format specification as Draft Standards

July 2002 IETF meeting

- issue IESG last call for image/tiff-fx registration and tiff-fx file 
format specification as Draft Standard

Mid September 2002

- to have image/tiff-fx registration and tiff-fx file format 
specification approved by IESG as Draft Standards