Re: Fwd: IFX> FW: notes from the ietf FAX wg meeting at IETF 51

Tamura-san,

I comment below.

Hiroshi Tamura wrote:
>
>Some slides at the meeting:
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>- TIFF extension beyond basic black-and-white induces incompatibility
>  with existing base tiff applications
>    Should we retreat to only base set black-and-white, retaining full
>    compatibility with existing tiff base or continue to embrace the defined
>    path that introduces new encodings for both black-and-white and color that
>    are consistent with ITU-T fax encodings?
>
>    1 If decision is to retain extended encodings then compatibility must be
>      addressed, two options are:
>        Different MIME type and file extension
>	or
>	Different MIME type and file extension  together with a new Adobe
>        issued TIFF version that encompass the TIFF-FX encodings
>
>    2 If decision is to retreat to only base black-and-white then we must:
>        Delete all TIFF-FX profiles other than S and F with constraints as follows:
>        encodings MH, MR and MMR resolutions of 200x100 and 200x200 paper size A4/letter
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>These are just descriptions. Some of the above may not be appropriate.
>
>I said:
>> Anyway, I would like to confirm our conclusion at the meeting.
>> 
>> 1. Safe subset for Draft Standard Consideration
>> 2. Final agreement will be made in this ML.
>
>But, we do not decide precisely what is safe subset.

I think that we need clarify what is a safe subset. 
Is the below correct?

- all TIFF-FX profiles other than S and F with constraints as follows:
- encodings MH, MR and MMR resolutions of 200x100 and 200x200 paper size A4/letter

I would like the safe subset to cover more wide range if possible
because many manufacture already have implement Internet Fax
according to RFC2301.


>
>Lloyd said:
>> p  - One of the four options below should be selected for the
>> specification(s) that will move forward through the standards tack process:
>>      1. Full TIFF-FX: - retain the currently defined TIFF-FX draft without
>> modification of the encoding set and define both a new MIME type (e.g.
>> image/tifffx or image/tifx) and a new file extension (e.g. .tifx or .tfx).
>> The new MIME type and extension circumvents interoperability issues with
>> TIFF 6.0. 
>>         Advantages: i) Retention of color and high quality encodings, ii) no
>> disruption of IFax products under deployment, and iii) a single integrated
>> specification.
>>         Disadvantages: i) Licensing issues to be resolved, and ii)
>> unpredictable approval schedule due to license resolution. 
>> 
>>      2. Interoperable TIFF-FX: - use the new interoperability document to
>> generate a TIFF-FX subset that is image/tiff interoperable, retaining the
>> current image/tiff MIME type. 
>>         Advantages: i) No licensing issues, and ii) predictable approval
>> schedule.
>>         Disadvantages: i) Loss of color and high quality encodings, ii)
>> disruption of IFax products under deployment.
>> 
>>      3. Interoperable and non-Interoperable TIFF-FX: - use the new
>> interoperability document to generate two subsets, a) Interoperable TIFF-FX,
>> as per #2, and b) non-Interoperable TIFF-FX, which is composed of the
>> remaining encoding subset. As with Full TIFF-FX, define both a new MIME type
>> and a new file extension for the non-Interoperable TIFF-FX.
>>         Advantages: i) Base-level black-and-white has no licensing issues,
>> ii) predictable base-level approval schedule iii) retention of color and
>> high quality encodings, iv) minimal disruption of IFax products under
>> deployment.
>>         Disadvantages: i) Licensing issues to be resolved for color & high
>> quality, ii) unpredictable color & high quality approval schedule, iii) two
>> disjoined specifications.
>> 
>>      4. Interoperable and Full TIFF-FX: - this is a combination of options 1
>> and 2.
>>         Advantages: i) Base-level black-and-white has no licensing issues,
>> ii) predictable base-level approval schedule iii) retention of color and
>> high quality encodings, iv) no disruption of IFax products under deployment,
>> and v) base-level specification may be phased out as viewers advance.
>>         Disadvantages: i) Licensing issues to be resolved for color & high
>> quality, ii) unpredictable color & high quality approval schedule.
>
>These are just ideas. Some of them may NOT be appropriate.
>Also, there may be other options.
>
>Anyway, we must have our conclusion, considering there are RFC2301 products
>on the market.
>

I prefer No. 4.  It seems less disadvantage to us. It is also suggested
by Dave-san in the meeting. 

Regards,

Kiyoshi Toyoda