RE: No description for image/tiff in Impl-Guide

Another I-D, which becomes a new RFC with a new RFC number, can be written to
correct the oversight.  Not a big deal.

-d

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On
> Behalf Of Hiroshi Tamura
> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 2:54 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: No description for image/tiff in Impl-Guide
>
>
>
> Hallo Claudio.
>
> > Now that there will be TWO separated image/tiff and image/tiff-fx MIME
> > sub-types, I believe the Implementers guide should at least
> point out that
> > image/tiff is for some profiles only and the image/tiff-fx
> should be used
> > for the other profiles. Implementers must be VERY aware of this
> fact, and
> > he Implementers guide must poit it out. Thus some revision seems
> necessary.
>
> Yes, it is better. But, a question.
>
> As we already know, the IETF Last Call finished.
> The I-D is already in RFC-editors' queue. But, "image/tiff-fx"
> itself is not
> standardized, i.e., it is not in RFC, although most of us already
> agreed to it.
>
> Although it is for informational RFC, if the guide addresses
> "image/tiff" and
> "image/tiff-fx", do we have to wait until
> draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-reg-01.txt or
> draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-11.txt **become** RFC,
>
> Or, is it possible to include it before it?
>
> --
> Hiroshi Tamura, Ricoh Company, LTD.
> E-mail: [email protected]
>