RE: IFX> RE: notes from the ietf FAX wg meeting at IETF 51

I agree with John Pulera's "solution option 5".  One document is best.

lee
===========================
Lee Farrell
Canon Information Systems
110 Innovation Drive
Irvine, CA  92612
(949) 856-7163 - voice
(949) 856-7510 - fax
[email protected]
===========================
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Hiroshi Tamura [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 3:40 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
Subject: IFX> RE: notes from the ietf FAX wg meeting at IETF 51


John,

> I believe it would be better and faster to resolve the IP issues quickly
and
> publish TIFF-FX as a single revised document.   The revised document
should
> restrict the use of the existing image/tiff MIME type and .tif (or .tiff)
> file name extensions to profiles S and F, and assign a new MIME type and
> file name extension for the profiles J, C, L, and M (perhaps image/tifx
and
> .tfx (or .tifx)). By restricting image/tiff to profiles S and F, TIFF-FX
> keeps compatibility with TIFF-6. By allowing image/tiff and .tif (or
.tiff)
> for the S and F profiles, TIFF-FX reflects what exists in many deployed
> TIFF-FX devices.
> 
> Let's call this solution option 5. It's a variant of options 1 and 4.

Yes, a good idea. One document is better for all implementers, I think.
But, how do we separate is the discussion issue.

<snip>

> If the document remains as one, we avoid spending the time to edit and
gain
> acceptance of the new documents. In addition, with a single document there
> are more people to pressure Adobe and Xerox to agree quickly on the IP
> issues.

Right. We need to avoid spending time for our market.
Thanks for your comment.

Regards,
--
Hiroshi Tamura, Co-chair of IETF-FAX WG
E-mail: [email protected]