-----Original Message-----
From: Hiroshi Tamura [mailto:tamura at toda.ricoh.co.jp]
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 6:20 PM
To: minutes at ietf.org
Cc: ned.freed at mrochek.com; paf at cisco.com; ietf-fax at imc.org
Subject: IETF-FAX WG minutes at Atlanta meeting
Attached is the FAX WG minutes at Atlanta meeting.
Regarding our slides, I will send separately.
Regards,
--
Hiroshi Tamura, Co-chair of IETF-FAX WG
E-mail: tamura at toda.ricoh.co.jp
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
WEDNESDAY, November 20 at 0900-1045
==============================
CHAIRS:
Claudio Allocchio <Claudio.Allocchio at garr.it>
Hiroshi Tamura <tamura at toda.ricoh.co.jp>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
0 Opening
---------------------------------------------------------------------
FAX WG meeting was held jointly with VPIM WG, on November 20 2002.
Hiroshi Tamura, co-chair of FAX WG, welcomed the participants and
started the meeting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Agenda Bashing
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The agenda was approved without changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
2 The I-Ds which IESG approved and are in RFC editor's queue
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
2.1 draft-ietf-fax-service-v2-05.txt (Draft Standard for RFC 2305)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Hiroshi Tamura commented that the document is now in the RFC Editor's queue.
There is reference issue for TIFF-FX and DSN (RFC 1894). Updated DSN
documents for Draft Standard (RFC 1891-1894) are also in the queue.
Regarding TIFF-FX, the WG postponed the discussion later, as it was in
the latter part of the agenda.
After the reference issue is solved, it can be published.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
3 The I-Ds for which IETF Last Call was finished
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
3.1 draft-ietf-fax-gateway-protocol-08.txt
3.2 draft-ietf-fax-gateway-options-05.txt
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The documents are currently being discussed at the IESG. Ned Freed,
Area Director, is contacting the editor for some changes which the IESG
discussion pointed out.
Hiroshi Tamura confirmed Ned about the problems. Ned told us that the
documents should be modified, for example, for gramartical point of view.
Well-English documents are required. The WG confirmed that there are
no techinical issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
4 The I-D which IESG is reviewing (Before IETF Last Call)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
4.1 draft-ietf-fax-timely-delivery-05.txt
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The WG Last Call already finished. But, after the Yokohama meeting,
the basic questions were raised in our ML, regarding how to realize
"timely-delivery". Through the discussion, the editors, Dave Crocker and
Graham Klyne, judged that the current proposed method is possibly complex.
Thus, they are investigating a possible alternate method, which is simpler
to implement and keep under control.
Dave proposed thus to withdraw the current specification as it is, and
re-draft a new one with substantial modifications. The editors will decide
if they keep the draft name, or remove the current one and start from
a new -00 one. The approach is to define "receipt-time" ack in MDN.
See the slide presented at the meeting by Dave and his accompanying message
for details on the newly proposed approach.
There was rough consensus on this proposal from the people present
in the room. It is confirmed in our ML.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
4.2 draft-allocchio-gstn-04.txt
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Claudio Allocchio, the editor of the I-D, reported that after the IETF
Last Call was over, only 1 further comment was received. He and
Patrik Faltstrom, Area Director, reviewed this comment, and agreed
it is totally an off topic comment. They just decided not to make
any further modification to the current draft. Patrik will prepare
the AD write-up for the IESG and send it for the approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
5 IFAX service of ENUM (draft-toyoda-enum-faxservice-00.txt)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Kiyoshi Toyoda, the editor of the I-D, was not present at the meeting.
Instead of him, Claudio Allcchio presented his slides.
Before Atlanta meeting, the structure of ENUM service field was not
fixed yet. But, this was the topic that ENUM WG were mainly discussing.
It was also presented at the ENUM WG meeting 2 days ago.
Claudio reported that at ENUM meeting the suggestion was to keep
this specification as a "Fax WG" document, and thus to discuss it
in our meetings/list. At the ENUM WG, the generic syntax was again
discussed and modified, and they hope it is now "stable". As soon as
this proves true, the I-D will reflect this final format.
However the important action now is to discuss the implication of
the proposal, and the information to convey into the ENUM fax record,
in our WG. Claudio thus solicited the WG for input to the editor.
The slides also showed the proposed road-map. Kiyoshi aims to update
the I-D after the syntax is fixed and to have WG Last Call next March.
As the document does not belong to our milestones, the WG agreed to
include it into our list, accepting the ENUM wg recommendation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
6 FFPIM (draft-ietf-fax-ffpim-01.txt)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Hiroshi Tamura checked the discussion report of the Yokohama meeting and
the two results were:
- Use of ESMTP options as SHOULD
- FFPIM conformance requires RFC2305 and RFC2532 conformance
But, the document was not yet updated. Dave Crocker, the editor of the I-D,
apologized for having forgotten to do this and took up the action again.
He told us that he would do it, considering the current situation
about Timely-Delivery and ESMPT-CONNEG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
7 Confirmation of dropping "Fax Status Information" in our milestone
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Hiroshi Tamura said that the WG tracker indicated there is one issue
in our milestone, which we forget. This is the one. But, our WG did not
discuss it for long months. Thus, the chairs formally asked the WG
for consensus to drop these documents from our list of "to-do" things.
The people in the room agreed to the dropping. The final question will
be posed again on the mailing list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
8 ITU issue
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Hiroshi Tamura, who attended ITU-T SG16 meeting held in October 2002,
reported the meeting. ITU-T accepted the amendment 3 to T.37,
reflecting the split of "image/tiff" for Profile S and F and
"image/tiff-fx" for Profile J, C, L and M, regarding MIME types.
See the slide.
It was approved for Consent. The formal approvement of the amendment
will occur "as Recommendation" when their Last Call expires on November
28th.
For the time being, there were no comments during the Last Call.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
9 Draft Standard Consideration
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
9.1 TIFF-FX (draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-11.txt)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Claudio Allocchio reported that a formal appeal to the IESG has been
submitted by Larry Masinter about the problems he sees inside the currently
available interoperability, licensing reports and the tiff-fx file format
specification. Larry commented that the appeal was rather to the decision of
the chairs for the advancement of the document to Draft Standard.
Claudio reminded the WG that at the London IETF, after a consultation
between the TIFF-FX editors, the WG (present and past) Chairs and the IAB,
it had been decided that a single image/tiff MIME type was inappropriate,
and thus we should correct this error, registering two separate type.
This should also be considered when reading the early documents about
interoperability and file format, as they were referring to image/tiff
also when the format was actually image/tiff-fx.
At the meeting in Minneapolis, Larry had noted that this is anyhow a
possible source
of confusion; comments were however made by people who took part into that
event that, even if the name was image/tiff, they were actually testing
image/tiff-fx features. Larry had objected again that some of the inside
specification were meanwhile changed, but it was noted that this might
eventually require some testing about these specific features, and not
invalidate the whole results.
After that, Robert Buckley presented (see slides) a compendium summary
driven out from the 2 available interop tests performed. At first,
He addressed briefly some quotation of RFC 2026. He reported that
the interoperability results are based on testing between at least
2 independent implementations and it meets the requirement of
Draft Standard.
Also, He presented the tables which show the support of features
for each Profiles in the original testings. It reveals that there are
a very limited number of cases (2 only) where there is only support
by one implementer. Thus he proposed that these features are dropped
from the tiff-fx specification (unless meanwhile it is reported that
an additional implementation is available for them). The WG expressed
consensus on this removal from the specification.
Larry Masinter then presented (see his slides) the objections which he is
raising about the latest report. He mainly claimed as follows:
* It was done for wrong document (RFC 2301), not I-D (tiff-fx-11).
* The latest report doesn't show interoperability.
* Implementations are not independent (same company or same source).
* Implementations not independent "replaceable components"
* No evidence of IPR licensing
* Many features have insufficient implementations listed.
* Proposal for interoperability
Claudio reported that what's presented in Larry's slides reflect
what's in the submitted complaint. During the presentation there were
objections by some people, about some points. Larry commented the changes
between two documents, for example, addition of GlobalParametersIFD
for profile F, but Ned found no evidence of such an addition and objected.
Although Larry showed disagreement in his presentation, Claudio commented
that about the request that it should be an Internet Fax specific
product/implementation which is used to test the file format,
while it seems that in some cases a file reader/write was used, externally
from an i-fax implementation. As it is a "file format" we should test the
file format, and this can be done with specific file tools like readers and
writers, no matter if these are then the same being implemented inside
i-fax implementation.
Larry also said that the files used are not available, to see what was
actually tested. James Rafferty reminded that the tiff-fx files for
all the profiles are available at the ITU repository.
Regarding the independency, it is commented that the reports are enough
for us to trust the declaration of the participants in the interop tests,
where they report independent implementations, although Larry already
objected in his presentation. Regarding some issues raised by Larry
Masinter,
there were no formal response during our meeting here.
Hiroshi Tamura summarized the latest CIAJ report (see the slides).
He claims that the two reports meet the requirement of Draft Standard,
although there are two remaining issues. They are addition of CIAJ
information
to the table which Robert made and the license validation. He also said
that one statement was just submitted to IETF a few days ago and now are
trying to collect the others.
Ned Freed, Area Director, said that it is necessary to combine the two
reports and to submit again. He also reminded that the current tiff-fx
specification is not YET on the IESG table, thus we are still considering
updates to it, especially after we agreed some features should be removed.
As final point, Claudio suggested that the WG chairs prepare an additional
accompanying document for the interop document set, including the tables
of supported and test features etc. The WG supported the proposal.
Back again on the ML.
After the meeting, Ned then presented the road-map to progress the work
in our ML and the WG agreed on it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
9.2 RFC 3250 ("image/tiff-fx")
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The publication of "image/tiff-fx" and its companion update of "image/tiff"
registration RFCs was done. It was noted that "image/tiff" is now
a Proposed Standard (used to be a BCP) as the IESG strongly suggested
to put it on standard track during its revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
10 SMTP Service Extension for Content Negotiation
(draft-ietf-fax-esmtp-conneg-03.txt)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Crocker, one of the editors of the I-D, presented a different approach
which could respond to the objections raised last summer on the mailing
list.
There are mainly two issues, which are about the relay and multi-recipients.
At the meeting, the relay issue was mentioned. He presented how to include
CONNEG authorization and CONNEG query in relay case. (See the slide.)
There was quite some discussion in order to clarify the presented solution,
which are now again summarized in his e-mail.
The WG agreed to his idea as rough consensus. The confirmation is asked
again on our ML. Dave will submit promptly the updated I-D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
11 Closing
---------------------------------------------------------------------
FAX WG handed over to VPIM, after running about 45 minutes late.