IFX Mail Archive: IFX> RE: More detail about the IPPFAX pres

IFX Mail Archive: IFX> RE: More detail about the IPPFAX pres

IFX> RE: More detail about the IPPFAX presentation to the Internet FAX WG at London IETF

From: McIntyre, Lloyd (Lloyd.McIntyre@pahv.xerox.com)
Date: Mon Aug 20 2001 - 17:05:56 EDT

  • Next message: Hastings, Tom N: "IFX> Notes on the IFX and IPPGET part of the IPPFAX telecon, Friday, A ug 17"

    Tom,
    Please accept my apology for the late response.

    Please see below.

    Lloyd

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Hastings, Tom N
    > Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 3:50 PM
    > To: Lloyd McIntyre (E-mail)
    > Cc: IPP FAX DL (E-mail)
    > Subject: More detail about the IPPFAX presentation to the Internet
    > FAX WG at London IETF
    >
    > 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?
            [LM] The concern is w.r.t. UIF and MIME type. Should UIF contain
    encoding parameter that are not consistent with those in the registered
    TIFF-FX MIME type then it should be distinguished appropriately.

    > 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?
            [LM] Mandatory 300 and 600 dpi support requirement is the only
    possibility I see. It may be argued that 600 dpi is not supported in the
    current TIFF-FX spec.
            BTW - it is TIFF-FX rather than TIFF/FX.

    > What about the one or two additional TIFF tags for UIF?
            [LM] If these d tags add encoding or file requirements, which are
    not comprehended within TIFF-FX, then this plays to the IFax WG's concerns.
    IPPFax could consider defining a UIF profiling spec for TIFF-FX rather than
    a UIF file format spec. This should sidestep issues of Adobe granting
    license to the PWG/IEEE and IFax WG concerns of MIME type compatibility.

    > 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



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 20 2001 - 17:06:28 EDT