IFX Mail Archive: IFX> FW: IETF-FAX WG minutes at Atlanta me

IFX Mail Archive: IFX> FW: IETF-FAX WG minutes at Atlanta me

IFX> FW: IETF-FAX WG minutes at Atlanta meeting

From: McDonald, Ira (imcdonald@sharplabs.com)
Date: Wed Dec 11 2002 - 19:55:45 EST

  • Next message: don@lexmark.com: "Re: IFX> The long awaited IP statement from Adobe."

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Hiroshi Tamura [mailto:tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp]
    Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 6:20 PM
    To: minutes@ietf.org
    Cc: ned.freed@mrochek.com; paf@cisco.com; ietf-fax@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.


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


    WEDNESDAY, November 20 at 0900-1045 ==============================

    CHAIRS: Claudio Allocchio <Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it> Hiroshi Tamura <tamura@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.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Dec 11 2002 - 20:05:28 EST