IETF-FAX WG meeting notes - S. Lake City, Dec 10th 2002 2. Status of Draft Standard consideration 2.1 TIFF-FX - draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-11.txt - draft-ietf-fax-tiff-regbis-03.txt - draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-reg-01.txt CA introduces briefly the topic with a summary of the situation. A number of e-mail has been exchanged between the WG, the WG-chairs, the IESG and IAB and SF from Adobe about the topic. After a long disucssion among the IAB, the IESG and the WG-chairs we reached the consensus that the issues and claims expressed from Adobe seems at least incoherent with the records of the IETF meetings and the mailing lists of the WG and of the IETF. For these reasons the IAB and IESG believes that the WG should continue progressing the documents, as decided on the mailing list after the London meeting, and submit them for appropriate consideration to the IESG as soon as they appear to be ready. JK and NF confirmed this position and invite the WG to proceed on its plans. CA thanks the IAB and IESG for their clear suggestion, and reminds briefly that the WG at the London meeting expressed the opinion to separate in 2 documents the TIFF and TIFF-FX specifications, but this was changed lately on the mailing list as what has been recorded as "option 5", i.e.: Single TIFF-FX specification with 2 Content-type Lloyd then exposes the current status of the above documents, and the progression plan for "option 5" (See also his slides) There will be a single TIFF-FX specification, which will be progressed. A decision needs to be made on how exactly to reach the needed Draft Standard level. See later in these notes for a detailed discussion. There will be 2 different MIME content-types: image/tiff for profiles S and F, which is compatible with all current viewers image/tiff-fx for profiles J, C, L, M, and any future one. It might also allow profiles S and F. There will be 2 corresponding file extensions (even if this is not a "strictly standard" decision, the WG believes that it is good practice to define: .tif (.tiff) for profiles S and F .tfx for all the other profiles As a consequence there is a need for 3 documents: - a revised draft-ietf-fax-tiff-regbis which updates image/tiff content type - a new registration draft registering image/tiff-fx MIME sub-type and the corresponding file extension (.tfx) - a revised draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx which defines which MIME type to use, depending on the used profiles, and updates the rest of the specification as appropriate. In order to test implementations and interoperability, the following "Test Deliverables" are proposed to the WG: - A new image-tiff-fx and .tfx validation test both for MIME transport and viewers - A new viewer validation for profile S and F and image/tiff The proposed timemelines are: During this December 2001 meeting: - make available the 3 new drafts (action done) - reach consensus on the content of the drafts - reach consensus on the drafts progressions paths - agree on the whole Option 5 plan. Before December 31st 2001: - update drafts as per the comments received during this meeting and from the mailing list - correct inside the image/tiff registration the magic number ERROR Mid January 2002: - issue the WG last call for image/tiff registration as BCP - issue the WG last call for image-tiff-fx registration ad Proposed Standard Mid February 2002 - issue the IESG last call for image/tiff - issue the IESG last call for image/tiff-fx - finalize the interoperability test plan, and identify participants At the March 2002 IETF meeting - to have image/tiff published as BCP - to have image/tiff-fx published as Proposed Standard - to have the test report available Mid June 2002 - issue the WG last call for image/tiff-fx registration and tiff-fx file format specification as Draft Standards July 2002 IETF meeting - issue IESG last call for image/tiff-fx registration and tiff-fx file format specification as Draft Standard Mid Semptember 2002 - to have image/tiff-fx registration and tiff-fx file format specification approved by IESG as Draft Standards NF and JK confirmed that normally the 6 month "wait" period between a Proposed Standard publication and its progression to Draft Standard is based on the date of IESG approval, and that the ADs will take particular care to speed up document processing, based on the existing dalay caused by external reasons. CA asked if there were objections to the proposed plan, and as none was raised, the WG expressed is consensus to proceed as proposed. The mailing list will ba asked to confirm this decision. LM presented then the status of the 3 drafts. In image/tiff registration: - tiff-regbis-03 removes S. Zilles from the authors lists - tiff-regbis-04 is needed to correct tiff magic number error In image/tiff-fx registration - version 01 registers image/tiff-fx MIME sub-type and .tfx extension for profiles J, C, L, M and future extensions, and may be optionally used ALSO for profiles S and F In itff-fx (version 11): - the new MIME content-type and extension are added - a detailed specification on when to use image/tiff and image/tiff-fx is provided - application parameters are removed from the specification as they might be a source of interoperability problems - S. Zilles is removed from the author's list After the presentation, the WG expressed consensus on the current content of the 3 I-Ds, and the mailing list is required to confirm this. As a general point, Larry Masinter commented that the WG already has a number of issued documents, and a number of documents which were already processed (WG, IESG last calls, RFC editor queue), and that now that a new image/tiff-fx is introduced, the WG needs to check tham all. The only 2 Draft Standard already issued (RFC3191 and RFC3192) do not mention the MIME type thus are ok as they are. The implementers guide needs to be revised, but it is already on the RFC editor queue, for example. NF commented that in such a case the WG is required to check where to make the modifications, and the, depending on the impact of the modifications themselves, the IESG will decide if consider acceptable the modification while in the RFC editor queue, or is some recycling is needed. In case tha latter solution is choosen, then the IESG will again speed up the document progress as possible. CA asked ALL the editors of current drafts to carefully check their documents (and the member of the WG to help them cross-checking, too) for places where image/tiff and image/tiff-fx split might be involved, and provide the needed corrections and updates ASAP. Again the procedures for the Implementers guide (i.e. the quickiest possible path) will be taken also for these other docments. NF confirms that the IESG will define the exact procedure to be folowed. As again the question about the possible impat of external IPR issues could have on the tiff-fx specification, JK reminded that there is an appropriate boilerplate text to be included into documents where there "might" be IPR issues, and that this text will point the reader to the appropriate IETF web pages and repository there the IPR issues and claims are kept up to date. IAB is also considering wther this boilerplate should be included in ALL published RFCs, and suggest thus to do so whenver the WG feels it might help in progressing a document. Then the Draft Progression Path Concurrence is again revised: - image/tiff revised registration goes from I-D to BCP - image/tiff-fx goes from I-D to Proposed Standard, waits 6 months, and is updated as I-D which goes then for Draft Standard The WG expresses consensus on the proposed paths, and the mailing list is asked to confirm it. The issue of the tiff-fx image file format specification progression path is more complex, as the alternates are: a) move from I-D to Draft Standard (waiting when dependencies are done) b) move from I-D to Proposed Standard (recycling) and the issue the updated I-D and more this to Draft Standard. As the WG does believe this is a question for the IESG (i.e. which of alternate a) or b) should be followed), NF will take it to the IESG which will advice the WG. As a conclusion, the WG expects the whole set of documents about TIFF and TIFF-FX to be done within September 2002.