Lloyd,
The PWG IPPFAX WG thanks you for presenting the IPPFAX slides to the
Internet FAX WG at the London IETF meeting.
The Internet FAX WG minutes show the following about your presentation:
5.4 PWG IPP Fax status report
Lloyd reported on behalf of the PWG IPP group. (see slides for a
detailed
description of documents and status). Is was made clear that the
activity
presetnte is carried on within the IEEE unbrella, and also that the
IESG
did not accepted this activity as a possible IETF one, answering
that
these activities were already covered by our wg. There was consensus
from
the wg that there must be a better coordination with these external
efforts, in order to avoid any possible incomaptible products to be
developed.
Can you elaborate on the kinds of incompatibility they are concerned about?
Is it about the IPPFAX protocol, about UIF, or about the MIME type and file
extension?
Are there some things that we are doing to require more for our UIF S, F, J,
C, L, M profiles that parallel TIFF/FX profiles that might cause a problem?
What about the one or two additional TIFF tags for UIF?
Also we will want to follow the principles that the Internet FAX group agree
to around the MIME media type and file extension for TIFF/FX. I.e., for
UIF, one of the following:
Use image/tiff with new application parameter if this is what TIFF/FX does
Use the same new TIFF/FX mime type (if TIFF/FX uses a new MIME media type),
but with new UIF parameter values
Use a new MIME type (even if TIFF/FX uses a new MIME media type), to keep
everything distinct.
Thanks,
Tom