RE: TIFF-FX: where are the implementor's statements of compliance ?

Folks,

Lloyd said:
> Larry,
> There are a number of inaccuracies or misunderstandings in your message that
> deserver clarification.

> - your statement with regard to no current implementations of most of the
> features makes no mention of the RFC2301 implementation report, completed in
> March 1999. Until your Adobe colleagues raised licensing issues, there have
> been no negative comments on this report by anyone in the WG. 

Yes. I would like to emphasize the above things that Lloyd said.
There were no comments where the report was submitted to IESG.
Also, there were no negative comments when RFC2301 had come out.
Adobe was one of the contributors.

Larry said:
> > - To move to "draft standard" you need:
> >    - multiple independent implementations of every feature
> >    - statements from the implementors that they
> >      "have taken adequate steps to comply with"
> >      any claimed intellectual property rights.
> >   (RFC 2026, section 10.3.2 (A) and section 4.1.2)
> > 
> > In the case of communication standards with two parties, "multiple
> > independent implementations" is taken to mean "two readers and
> > two writers" or "two clients and two servers".

This is the fact. Regading it, I searched the editors' comment in ML.

From: "McIntyre, Lloyd" <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: option 5 for TIFF-FX
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 14:19:29 -0700

<snip>

>   TIMELINES

<snip>

> - A test plan draft for draft-ietf-fax-tiffx-reg-xx interoperability testing
> and verification of that current viewers can successfully read Profile S & F
> should be available for the WG meeting.
> - End of January 2002 is the target for completion of the test plan and
> sign-up of participants.
> - End of February 2002 may then be a reasonable target for completion of
> draft-ietf-fax-tiffx-reg-xx interoperability testing, along with Profile S &
> F viewing confirmation.

So, the editors understand the situation.
Also, I would like follow a little.

I said:
> With regard to the above,
> the **NEW** implementation tests are necessary for the process.
> Because the current I-D defines new MIME content type
> for Profile J, C, L and M.

There is only the change for the content-type.
I believe TIFF-FX test itself is covered by the report that
the editors already submitted.
Therefore, only the test for the content-type is necessary, I think.
"Two readers and two writers" or "two clients and two servers".

Again, I'm very sorry that I cannot attend SLC meeting.
I hope my comment help the discussion.

BTW, unfortunately, Claudio does not have his PC at SLC.
I think he can read the related messages from the terminal-room,
before our meeting starts.
Could you please someone contact Claudio and ask him to read them
for confirmation?

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