RE: Internet FAX WG meeting summary

Claudio,
Thanks for a job well done in conducting what could have been a difficult
meeting and preparing such thorough minutes within a short period.

I have provided a few clarification proposals below.

Lloyd

> 2. Status of Draft Standard consideration
> 2.1 TIFF-FX                                      
> - draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-11.txt
> - draft-ietf-fax-tiff-regbis-03.txt
> - draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-reg-01.txt
>  Single TIFF-FX specification with 2 Content-type
> 
--snip--
> 
> Mid Semptember 2002
> 
> - to have image/tiff-fx registration and tiff-fx file format 
> specification piublished as Draft Standards
This should indicate approved rather than published as Draft Standards. It
is likely that publication will occur later than September.
> 
--snip--
> Then the Draft Progression Path Concurrence is again revised:
> 
> - image/tiff revised registration goes from I-D to BCP
> 
> - image/tiff-fx goes from I-D to Proposed Standard, waits 6 
> months, and
> is updated as I-D which goes then for Proposed Standard
This should read "then for Draft Standard" rather than Proposed Standard.
> 

> 8 Confirmation of milestones
> - FFPIM
> 
> Final draft due for X-mas 2001
> 
> - ESMTP-CONNEG
> 
> Nov 2001 final draft submitted (Done)
> 
> Jan 2002 IETF last call
> 
> - TIFF-FX extension
> 
> on hold until TIFF-FX new documents are finalized. Maybe Jun 2002.
To be consistent with section 6.4 please consider changing this to read "on
hold until relevant new documents are at a stable state. Maybe February
2002". The Feb. 02 IESG last call period is more consistent with my proposal
of a stable state for these documents (i.e. image/tiff and image/tiff-fx
registration), especially in light of their simplicity.
>