Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part --------------
IETF-FAX WG meeting notes - S. Lake City, Dec 10th 2002
2. Status of Draft Standard consideration
2.1 TIFF-FX
- draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-11.txt
- draft-ietf-fax-tiff-regbis-03.txt
- draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-reg-01.txt
CA introduces briefly the topic with a summary of the situation. A
number of e-mail has been exchanged between the WG, the
WG-chairs, the IESG and IAB and SF from Adobe about the topic. After a
long disucssion among the IAB, the IESG and the WG-chairs we reached the
consensus that the issues and claims expressed from Adobe seems at least
incoherent with the records of the IETF meetings and the mailing lists of
the WG and of the IETF. For these reasons the IAB and IESG believes that
the WG should continue progressing the documents, as decided on the
mailing list after the London meeting, and submit them for appropriate
consideration to the IESG as soon as they appear to be ready. JK and NF
confirmed this position and invite the WG to proceed on its plans.
CA thanks the IAB and IESG for their clear suggestion, and reminds
briefly that the WG at the London meeting expressed the opinion to
separate in 2 documents the TIFF and TIFF-FX specifications, but this was
changed lately on the mailing list as what has been recorded as "option
5", i.e.:
Single TIFF-FX specification with 2 Content-type
Lloyd then exposes the current status of the above documents, and the
progression plan for "option 5" (See also his slides)
There will be a single TIFF-FX specification, which will be progressed. A
decision needs to be made on how exactly to reach the needed Draft
Standard level. See later in these notes for a detailed discussion.
There will be 2 different MIME content-types:
image/tiff for profiles S and F, which is compatible with all current
viewers
image/tiff-fx for profiles J, C, L, M, and any future one. It might also
allow profiles S and F.
There will be 2 corresponding file extensions (even if this is not a
"strictly standard" decision, the WG believes that it is good practice to
define:
.tif (.tiff) for profiles S and F
.tfx for all the other profiles
As a consequence there is a need for 3 documents:
- a revised draft-ietf-fax-tiff-regbis which updates image/tiff content type
- a new registration draft registering image/tiff-fx MIME sub-type and
the corresponding file extension (.tfx)
- a revised draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx which defines which MIME type to use,
depending on the used profiles, and updates the rest of the
specification as appropriate.
In order to test implementations and interoperability, the following
"Test Deliverables" are proposed to the WG:
- A new image-tiff-fx and .tfx validation test both for MIME transport and
viewers
- A new viewer validation for profile S and F and image/tiff
The proposed timemelines are:
During this December 2001 meeting:
- make available the 3 new drafts (action done)
- reach consensus on the content of the drafts
- reach consensus on the drafts progressions paths
- agree on the whole Option 5 plan.
Before December 31st 2001:
- update drafts as per the comments received during this meeting and from
the mailing list
- correct inside the image/tiff registration the magic number ERROR
Mid January 2002:
- issue the WG last call for image/tiff registration as BCP
- issue the WG last call for image-tiff-fx registration ad Proposed Standard
Mid February 2002
- issue the IESG last call for image/tiff
- issue the IESG last call for image/tiff-fx
- finalize the interoperability test plan, and identify participants
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 Semptember 2002
- to have image/tiff-fx registration and tiff-fx file format
specification approved by IESG as Draft Standards
NF and JK confirmed that normally the 6 month "wait" period between a
Proposed Standard publication and its progression to Draft Standard is
based on the date of IESG approval, and that the ADs will take particular
care to speed up document processing, based on the existing dalay caused
by external reasons.
CA asked if there were objections to the proposed plan, and as none was
raised, the WG expressed is consensus to proceed as proposed. The mailing
list will ba asked to confirm this decision.
LM presented then the status of the 3 drafts.
In image/tiff registration:
- tiff-regbis-03 removes S. Zilles from the authors lists
- tiff-regbis-04 is needed to correct tiff magic number error
In image/tiff-fx registration
- version 01 registers image/tiff-fx MIME sub-type and .tfx extension for
profiles J, C, L, M and future extensions, and may be optionally used
ALSO for profiles S and F
In itff-fx (version 11):
- the new MIME content-type and extension are added
- a detailed specification on when to use image/tiff and image/tiff-fx is
provided
- application parameters are removed from the specification as they might
be a source of interoperability problems
- S. Zilles is removed from the author's list
After the presentation, the WG expressed consensus on the current
content of the 3 I-Ds, and the mailing list is required to confirm this.
As a general point, Larry Masinter commented that the WG already has a
number of issued documents, and a number of documents which were already
processed (WG, IESG last calls, RFC editor queue), and that now that a
new image/tiff-fx is introduced, the WG needs to check tham all. The only
2 Draft Standard already issued (RFC3191 and RFC3192) do not mention the
MIME type thus are ok as they are. The implementers guide needs to be
revised, but it is already on the RFC editor queue, for example. NF
commented that in such a case the WG is required to check where to make
the modifications, and the, depending on the impact of the modifications
themselves, the IESG will decide if consider acceptable the modification
while in the RFC editor queue, or is some recycling is needed. In case
tha latter solution is choosen, then the IESG will again speed up the
document progress as possible.
CA asked ALL the editors of current drafts to carefully check their
documents (and the member of the WG to help them cross-checking, too)
for places where image/tiff and image/tiff-fx split might be involved,
and provide the needed corrections and updates ASAP. Again the procedures
for the Implementers guide (i.e. the quickiest possible path) will be
taken also for these other docments. NF confirms that the IESG will
define the exact procedure to be folowed.
As again the question about the possible impat of external IPR issues
could have on the tiff-fx specification, JK reminded that there is an
appropriate boilerplate text to be included into documents where there
"might" be IPR issues, and that this text will point the reader to the
appropriate IETF web pages and repository there the IPR issues and claims
are kept up to date. IAB is also considering wther this boilerplate
should be included in ALL published RFCs, and suggest thus to do so
whenver the WG feels it might help in progressing a document.
Then the Draft Progression Path Concurrence is again revised:
- image/tiff revised registration goes from I-D to BCP
- image/tiff-fx goes from I-D to Proposed Standard, waits 6 months, and
is updated as I-D which goes then for Draft Standard
The WG expresses consensus on the proposed paths, and the mailing list is
asked to confirm it.
The issue of the tiff-fx image file format specification progression path
is more complex, as the alternates are:
a) move from I-D to Draft Standard (waiting when dependencies are done)
b) move from I-D to Proposed Standard (recycling) and the issue the
updated I-D and more this to Draft Standard.
As the WG does believe this is a question for the IESG (i.e. which of
alternate a) or b) should be followed), NF will take it to the IESG which
will advice the WG.
As a conclusion, the WG expects the whole set of documents about TIFF and
TIFF-FX to be done within September 2002.