IFX Mail Archive: RE: IFX> TIFF-FX viability

IFX Mail Archive: RE: IFX> TIFF-FX viability

RE: IFX> TIFF-FX viability

From: McDonald, Ira (imcdonald@sharplabs.com)
Date: Thu Jan 24 2002 - 13:54:57 EST

  • Next message: McDonald, Ira: "RE: IFX> TIFF-FX viability"

    Hi John,

    Thanks for this report on the IETF Fax WG meeting at December IETF.

    A couple of small corrections and cautions.

    BCP = Best CURRENT Practice (see section 5 of RFC 2026, Internet
    Standard Process, October 1996). This emphasizes that BCP's are
    a snapshot in time and IAB/IETF recommendations may change in the

    At present, the RFC Editor's queue has a typical delay of four
    to six months AFTER IETF approval for publication of the RFC.
    So a Proposed Standard approved by the IETF in March will only
    be PUBLISHED as an RFC in September. And RFC 2026 is real
    clear that the 6 months minimum between Proposed and Draft
    Standard status is for the published RFC, NOT for the final
    text of the IETF-approved Internet-Draft that will become an
    RFC. All of which means that sometime in the first half of
    calendar 2003 is the earliest possible date for Draft Standard
    status for the TIFF-FX spec.

    - Ira McDonald
      High North Inc

    -----Original Message-----
    From: John Pulera [mailto:jpulera@minolta-mil.com]
    Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 1:20 PM
    To: Harry Lewis
    Cc: IPP-Fax Group
    Subject: RE: IFX> TIFF-FX viability


    Concerning status with Adobe, please see attached "2. Status of Draft
    Standard consideration", which was taken from the IFax working group minutes
    from the Salt Lake City meeting in Decmber and the info below.

    The following is a translation of the initials referenced in the attached
    minutes segment:
    CA = Claudio Allocchio (IFax WG co-chair)
    JK = John Klensin (IAB chair)
    NF = Ned Freed (Application Area director)
    SF = Scott Foshee (Adobe's representative)

    IETF gives direction - full speed ahead in moving TIFF-FX to Draft Standard
    for Sept. 02. During the IFax Working Group (WG) session of the Dec. 2001
    IETF meeting the Chair of the IAB (Internet Architecture Board - IETF's
    oversight body)directed the WG to proceed in advancing TIFF-FX to Draft
    Standard without regard for Adobe's license claims. The IFax WG responded by
    establishing Sept. 2002 as the target for TIFF-FX to be approved as Draft
    Standard. The TIFF-FX specification will require use of two MIME
    content-types, the current image/tiff for basic black-and-white encodings
    and a new image/tiff-fx content-type for other image encodings (e.g. color
    and high quality black-and-white), when transported by MIME.

    In December, Xerox offered their MRC technology for use in TIFF royalty-free
    as long as such usage is consistent with the way MRC is currently used in
    TIFF-FX. In addition, any company implementing Profile M / MRC in a
    marketplace product can request a royalty-free license from Xerox. A
    separate license from Adobe is NOT needed as long as UIF is treated as
    TIFF-FX, and the enhanced conformance requirements that UIF brings to the
    table are described as "TIFF-FX extensions". If UIF is described in this
    manner, then it will fall under the license grant that Adobe has already
    given to the IETF.

    Instead, of raising IP issues now, Adobe (represented by Larry Masinter) is
    claiming that the IETFs proposed solution of using the "image/tiff-fx" MIME
    type & *.tfx file extension for identifying TIFF-FX profiles that are not
    compatible with TIFF 6.0 is enough of a change to warrant the TIFF-FX spec
    to be recycled back to "Proposed Standard" status (currently it is at "last
    call" for "Draft Standard"). During the December IETF meeting, members have
    rebutted by saying that changing the MIME type & file extension of TIFF-FX
    profiles has nothing to do with the TIFF-FX data format itself. The Area
    Director indicated that there is merit to NOT require recycling to Proposed
    Standard. He has taken an action item to seek IESG ruling as to whether it
    is necessary to recycle to Proposed Standard.

    The IESG should come to a decision about recycling TIFF-FX to Proposed
    Standard versus retaining it in the Draft Standard pending mode by the end
    of January 2002.

    If they rule in favor of retaining Draft Standard pending mode, then the
    schedule for the 3 TIFF-FX related documents will be as follows:

    draft-ietf-fax-tiff-regbis-03.txt (image/tiff MIME registration document -
    follows Best Common Practice or "BCP" track)
       Currently "Best Common Practice" last call
       March 2002 - "Best Common Practice" status

    draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-reg-01.txt (image/tiff-fx MIME registration document
    - follows formalized standards progression track)
       Currently - Internet draft
       March 2002 - Proposed Standard status (must stay at this level for at
    least 6 months)
       September 2002 - Draft Standard status

    draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-11.txt (a.k.a., "the TIFF-FX spec", "RFC2301" -
    follows formalized standards progression track)
        Currently - Pending Draft Standard
        September 2002 - Draft Standard status

    Note that the September 2002 Draft Standard milestone is valid even if the
    IESG rules that TIFF-FX should be recycled as Proposed Standard. The WG and
    the Area Director have committed to Draft Standard approval by Sept. 2002,
    independent of whether recycling to Proposed Standard is necessary. This is
    the case because a TIFF-FX Proposed Standard last call and approval
    milestones would be the same or very similar to that of image/tiff-fx (i.e.
    WG Last Call end January, IESG Last Call February, approved Proposed
    Standard March, and Draft Standard September 2002).

    With this said, I would recommend to the IPPFax group that UIF in its
    current form (i.e., as TIFF-FX referencing TIFF-FX extensions) be adopted as
    the data format for IPPFax. Considering another data format would only delay
    IPPFax's schedule.

    John P.

    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-ifx@pwg.org [mailto:owner-ifx@pwg.org]On Behalf Of Harry
    Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 2:08 PM
    To: ifx@pwg.org
    Subject: IFX> TIFF-FX viability

    Can anyone provide an update on the status of the Adobe license issue
    w.r.t.TIFF-FX in the IETF? I know there was some desire for me to pursue a
    license agreement for the PWG but it makes little sense, to me, for the
    PWG to request a license which is identical to that which has been
    rejected for the IETF. If someone can provide some good reasoning and
    there is consensus, I will do this in preparation for the Feb meeting in

    What about considering alternative image formats? At the last f2f there
    was some degree of revelation that it may not be necessary to seek one
    standard that covers all the IFX needs. For example, the combination of
    the JPEG2000/JBIG2/MRC algorithms as described in JPEG20000 Part 6 may
    maximize compression efficiency AND provide a monochrome solution which is
    an efficient subset of the color solution.
    Harry Lewis
    IBM Printing Systems

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 24 2002 - 18:24:53 EST