IFX Mail Archive: RE: IFX> RE: notes from the ietf FAX wg me

IFX Mail Archive: RE: IFX> RE: notes from the ietf FAX wg me

RE: IFX> RE: notes from the ietf FAX wg meeting at IETF 51

From: Farrell, Lee (lfarrell@cissc.canon.com)
Date: Fri Aug 24 2001 - 16:24:14 EDT

  • Next message: Harry Lewis: "RE: IFX> RE: notes from the ietf FAX wg meeting at IETF 51"

    I agree with John Pulera's "solution option 5". One document is best.

    lee
    ===========================
    Lee Farrell
    Canon Information Systems
    110 Innovation Drive
    Irvine, CA 92612
    (949) 856-7163 - voice
    (949) 856-7510 - fax
    lfarrell@cissc.canon.com
    ===========================
     

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Hiroshi Tamura [mailto:tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp]
    Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 3:40 AM
    To: jpulera@minolta-mil.com
    Cc: Lloyd.McIntyre@pahv.xerox.com; ietf-fax@imc.org; klensin@jck.com;
    ifx@pwg.org
    Subject: IFX> RE: notes from the ietf FAX wg meeting at IETF 51

    John,

    > I believe it would be better and faster to resolve the IP issues quickly
    and
    > publish TIFF-FX as a single revised document. The revised document
    should
    > restrict the use of the existing image/tiff MIME type and .tif (or .tiff)
    > file name extensions to profiles S and F, and assign a new MIME type and
    > file name extension for the profiles J, C, L, and M (perhaps image/tifx
    and
    > .tfx (or .tifx)). By restricting image/tiff to profiles S and F, TIFF-FX
    > keeps compatibility with TIFF-6. By allowing image/tiff and .tif (or
    .tiff)
    > for the S and F profiles, TIFF-FX reflects what exists in many deployed
    > TIFF-FX devices.
    >
    > Let's call this solution option 5. It's a variant of options 1 and 4.

    Yes, a good idea. One document is better for all implementers, I think.
    But, how do we separate is the discussion issue.

    <snip>

    > If the document remains as one, we avoid spending the time to edit and
    gain
    > acceptance of the new documents. In addition, with a single document there
    > are more people to pressure Adobe and Xerox to agree quickly on the IP
    > issues.

    Right. We need to avoid spending time for our market.
    Thanks for your comment.

    Regards,

    --
    Hiroshi Tamura, Co-chair of IETF-FAX WG
    E-mail: tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 24 2001 - 16:25:30 EDT