FYI,
- Ira McDonald (consulting architect at Sharp and Xerox)
High North Inc
-----Original Message-----
From: Hiroshi Tamura [mailto:tamura at toda.ricoh.co.jp]
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 3:26 PM
To: ietf-fax at imc.org
Subject: Re: Fax WG minutes - 11-Dec-2000
Folks,
I'm back at my office.(I left San Diego on Wednesday).
Here is the summary of FAX WG at San Diego.
Claudio,
thank you so much for your *detailed* summary.
I will prepare the first draft meeting minutes based on this summary.
Thanks to this summary, I can do within this year.
Claudio, thanks again.
Regards,
--
Hiroshi Tamura, Co-chair of IETF-FAX WG
E-mail: tamura at toda.ricoh.co.jp
From: Claudio Allocchio <Claudio.Allocchio at elettra.trieste.it>
Subject: Re: Fax WG minutes - 11-Dec-2000
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 19:53:58 +0100
>>> Here is the brief summary of the ietf-fax WG meeting, monday afternoon.
>> The WG examined the status of the current drafts and the ongoing work, in
> oder to confirm their situation.
>> Currently there are some pending Draft Standard I-D whose work is
> finished and underwent WG last call (just minor editorial corrections to
> some of them):
>> - draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-09.txt
> - draft-ietf-fax-tiff-regbis-02.txt
> - draft-ietf-fax-minaddr-v2-02.txt
> - draft-ietf-fax-faxaddr-v2-02.txt
>> they're now in AD queue for IESG processing. No further comments came
> from WG.
>> We discussed the "service" document revision (also targeted for Draft
> Standard)
>> - draft-ietf-fax-service-v2-02.txt
>> its major current problem is its dependancy on DSN docs status. As
> reported, the DSN documents editor is working in these days to produce
> the new final Draft Standard docs for DSN in order to proceed. There are
> no MDM dependacies in this document.
>> On going work on I-Ds:
>> Gateway issues:
>> - draft-ietf-fax-gateway-protocol-02.txt
> - draft-ietf-fax-gateway-options-00.txt
>> some clarification were made into the text, splitting the original docs.
> Currently there are still some points to clarify in the gateway behaviour
> when non delivery notifications are involved. The docs do not
> intentioanlly cover the multiple gateway crossing scenario, as it would
> be a too complex situation to keep into this schema.
>> Implementers guide is ready. Minor clarifications to it. The WG believes
> it is very useful, and expecially needed now that products are being
> released.
>> - draft-ietf-fax-implementers-guide-04.txt
>> ITU requested to re-submit an expired I-D:
>> - draft-ietf-fax-ffpim-00.txt
>> the editor will do it.
>> The discussion on timely delivery (as to satisfy a request from ITU)
> revealed that there are still some "last hop" considerations to be
> clarified before the documents can be finalised: we need to make clear
> with ITU which is the scenario, i.e. if the final "MUA" or "gateway"
> action is what they intend as final delivery. In such a case, the WG
> believes we need much more than this simple definitions, and probably new
> protocols between the final MTA and final MUA.
>> - draft-ietf-fax-timely-delivery-01.txt
> - draft-ietf-fax-content-negotiation-03.txt
>> TIFF-FX extensions: the new lates extesions were presented. No further
> comments from WG.
> - draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-extension1-00.txt
>
> Partial Non Delivery Notification draft (from EMA / VPIM): the WG decided
> it is not worth to continue with the specification: document will be
dropped.
>> - draft-ema-vpim-pndn-02.txt
>> The WG than had a presentation of ENUM schema and current drafts, with a
> request to define the eventual Resource Records which might be usueful
> for internet fax service: the WG agreed it is a viable option. We will
> consider making the specification.
>> - draft-gallant-enum-ifax-00.txt
>> We also had the update on how VPIM WG will use the EMUN specification,
> chich is a possible solution also for i-fax
>> - draft-ietf-vpim-routing-01.txt
>> ITU Issues: the next ITU meeting is in June 2001. We received the formal
> requests, and we will finalise the answer on the mailing list and in the
> next meeting in March.
>> We also revised the milestones: dates were confiurmed or modified
> according to the editors comments. On document was dropped as considered
> now irrilevant:Nov 2000 Final draft of Routing Considerations
> Apprently we are on schedule with the other milestones (see WG minutes)
>> We ended the meeting a bit late.. but the WG has a large amount of
> documents to deal with.