- Ira McDonald (consulting architect at Sharp and Xerox)
High North Inc
I'm back at my office.(I left San Diego on Wednesday).
Here is the summary of FAX WG at San Diego.
thank you so much for your *detailed* summary.
I will prepare the first draft meeting minutes based on this summary.
Thanks to this summary, I can do within this year.
Claudio, thanks again.
-- Hiroshi Tamura, Co-chair of IETF-FAX WG E-mail: email@example.com
From: Claudio Allocchio <Claudio.Allocchio@elettra.trieste.it> Subject: Re: Fax WG minutes - 11-Dec-2000 Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 19:53:58 +0100
> > > Here is the brief summary of the ietf-fax WG meeting, monday afternoon. > > The WG examined the status of the current drafts and the ongoing work, in > oder to confirm their situation. > > Currently there are some pending Draft Standard I-D whose work is > finished and underwent WG last call (just minor editorial corrections to > some of them): > > - draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-09.txt > - draft-ietf-fax-tiff-regbis-02.txt > - draft-ietf-fax-minaddr-v2-02.txt > - draft-ietf-fax-faxaddr-v2-02.txt > > they're now in AD queue for IESG processing. No further comments came > from WG. > > We discussed the "service" document revision (also targeted for Draft > Standard) > > - draft-ietf-fax-service-v2-02.txt > > its major current problem is its dependancy on DSN docs status. As > reported, the DSN documents editor is working in these days to produce > the new final Draft Standard docs for DSN in order to proceed. There are > no MDM dependacies in this document. > > On going work on I-Ds: > > Gateway issues: > > - draft-ietf-fax-gateway-protocol-02.txt > - draft-ietf-fax-gateway-options-00.txt > > some clarification were made into the text, splitting the original docs. > Currently there are still some points to clarify in the gateway behaviour > when non delivery notifications are involved. The docs do not > intentioanlly cover the multiple gateway crossing scenario, as it would > be a too complex situation to keep into this schema. > > Implementers guide is ready. Minor clarifications to it. The WG believes > it is very useful, and expecially needed now that products are being > released. > > - draft-ietf-fax-implementers-guide-04.txt > > ITU requested to re-submit an expired I-D: > > - draft-ietf-fax-ffpim-00.txt > > the editor will do it. > > The discussion on timely delivery (as to satisfy a request from ITU) > revealed that there are still some "last hop" considerations to be > clarified before the documents can be finalised: we need to make clear > with ITU which is the scenario, i.e. if the final "MUA" or "gateway" > action is what they intend as final delivery. In such a case, the WG > believes we need much more than this simple definitions, and probably new > protocols between the final MTA and final MUA. > > - draft-ietf-fax-timely-delivery-01.txt > - draft-ietf-fax-content-negotiation-03.txt > > TIFF-FX extensions: the new lates extesions were presented. No further > comments from WG.
> - draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-extension1-00.txt >
> Partial Non Delivery Notification draft (from EMA / VPIM): the WG decided > it is not worth to continue with the specification: document will be dropped. > > - draft-ema-vpim-pndn-02.txt > > The WG than had a presentation of ENUM schema and current drafts, with a > request to define the eventual Resource Records which might be usueful > for internet fax service: the WG agreed it is a viable option. We will > consider making the specification. > > - draft-gallant-enum-ifax-00.txt > > We also had the update on how VPIM WG will use the EMUN specification, > chich is a possible solution also for i-fax > > - draft-ietf-vpim-routing-01.txt > > ITU Issues: the next ITU meeting is in June 2001. We received the formal > requests, and we will finalise the answer on the mailing list and in the > next meeting in March. > > We also revised the milestones: dates were confiurmed or modified > according to the editors comments. On document was dropped as considered > now irrilevant:Nov 2000 Final draft of Routing Considerations > Apprently we are on schedule with the other milestones (see WG minutes) > > We ended the meeting a bit late.. but the WG has a large amount of > documents to deal with.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Dec 14 2000 - 20:08:42 EST