RE: Option 1-5 for TIFF-FX

In case it isn't clear, I strongly favor option 2:

Only option 2 meets the requirements for "Draft Standard" at
this time, because there have not been any demonstration of
implementations that implement any of the other options,
which require using other MIME types. (While you might
imagine that the implementation changes are simple and that
the demonstrations could be done, it isn't sufficient for
interoperability to be imagined.)

Option 3 is not preferable, but is at least workable,
because the interoperable subset could become Draft Standard,
and the non-interoperable subset with new MIME type could become
Proposed Standard, and upgrade to Draft Standard at a later
time.

Neither of these would delay the progress of "Fax Service"
to Draft Standard.

All of the other options would entail delay, because at
a minimum, independent interoperable implementations
(with independent exercise of any licensing terms) should
be demonstrated before progressing to Draft Standard.