Re: Draft letter to ITU-T

Ok.

  paf

--On 2002-01-26 15.34 +0900 Hiroshi Tamura <[email protected]> wrote:

> Folks,
> 
> The draft letter is below. ITU-T meeting starts on Feb 5.
> I have to send it to the rapporteur by the end of next week.
> If there are comments, please do soon. If possible, I would like to
> collect them by Jan 30(GMT) and circulate the final one on Jan 31.
> Sorry for the tight deadline.
> 
> Please note that there is one paragraph in which John, Ned and Patrik
> already confirmed the content with regard to IPR issue.
> It starts with "The IAB does not make ---". 
> 
> Regards,
> --
> Hiroshi Tamura, Co-chair of IETF-FAX WG
> E-mail: [email protected]
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> TITLE:	Communication from IETF FAX Working Group
> 
> CONTACT:
> Hiroshi Tamura (Co-chair of IETF FAX WG)	Tel:	+81-46-228-1743
> Ricoh Co., Ltd.					Fax:	+81-46-228-7500
> 2446 Toda, Atsugi, Kanagawa, 243-0023, JAPAN	E-mail:
> 	[email protected]
> 
> APPROVED BY:
> FAX Working Group with Claudio Allocchio (Co-chair of IETF FAX WG)
> 
> 
>  --------
> 
> This letter is to nofity the current status of IETF FAX Working Group,
> with regard to TIFF-FX, Implementers Guide and Terminal Mode that ITU-T
> commented in the communication of SG16 meeting in June 2001.
> 
> 1 TIFF-FX
> 
> Fax WG has been trying to move it to Draft Standard for long years.
> Last year there were IPR and compatiblity issues that our group
> had to solve before that.
> 
> 1.1 IPR
> The IPR issue was claimed by Adobe (TIFF holder) about TIFF itself.
> Adobe was one of the contributors of TIFF-FX, but changed the stance
> for the use of TIFF. Fax WG and IESG (Internet Engineering Steering
> Group - managing WGs) asked IAB (Internet Architecture Board -
> IETF's oversight body) for consultation.
> 
> At the Dec. 2001 IETF meeting, IAB, ISEG and WG reached the consensus
> that Adobe's claims were regard as inconsistent with the mailing lists
> records. FAX WG agreed to the Draft Stadard process, as usual.
> 
> The IAB does not make formal decisions about IPR issues. As a matter
> of fact, it appears clear that Adobe authorized the uses in TIFF-FX, 
> and lately sent out communication which might either mean they changed
> their mind about the previous authorization, or now they intend to 
> restrict these uses all along. In any case, the timing of their latter
> actions appears to be against the common practice of reasonable people,
> and violating both the letter of RFC 2026 and what are normally
> considered  good industry practices. The IETF believes that one cannot
> violate a  patent, or, in general, licensing provisions, by standardizing
> a  technology, but eventually only by using that technology. The IETF FAX
> WG concluded that TIFF-FX technologies have been implemented and deployed
> without effective interference from Adobe, and thus there is no bar,
> under IETF procedures, to moving the specification to Draft Standard
> status.
> 
> Regarding the IPR issue, the Application Area Directors (members of IESG:
> Ned Freed and Patrik Faltstrom), in agreement with the IETF FAX WG,
> have also declared in the above paragraph.
> 
> 1.2 Compatibility
> The other issue is compatibility one for the use of image/tiff MIME
> content type for Profile J (JBIG), C (Color), L (JBIG color) and M (MRC)
> for some TIFF readers. Therefore, our group has decided to use two MIME
> content-types, the current image/tiff for Profile S (MH) and F (MR, MMR)
> and a new image/tiff-fx content-type for other Profiles,
> when transported by MIME.
> 
> The internet-draft "draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-reg-01.txt" describes the
> new content-type and the registration. Also, there are two
> internet-drafts: draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-11.txt (TIFF-FX specification
> itself) and
> draft-ietf-fax-tiff-regbis-04.txt (TIFF registration).
> 
> The IETF December meeting agreed that the target date for TIFF-FX to be
> approved as Draft Standard is September 2002. FAX WG is now trying to
> move the process.
> 
> Fax WG understands that T.37 refer some related RFCs. Therefore,
> after the new documents are approved, our group will submit it to ITU-T.
> 
> 
> 2 Implementers Guide
> 
> The internet-draft was already approved by IESG and was in RFC-editors'
> queue (i.e. waiting for publication) before December meeting.
> But, as the above, our group has decided to use the two content-types
> for the file format. As the result, our group agreed that the use of
> content-types should also be described in the guide. Now, there is
> a updated internet-draft "draft-ietf-fax-implementers-guide-08.txt",
> which includes the description and refer
> "draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-reg-01.txt".
> 
> The guide is still in RFC-editors' queue. The RFC number will be
> assigned along with "draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-reg-01.txt".
> 
> FAX WG understands that T.37 appendix will refer the Implementers Guide.
> After the RFC number is assigned, our group will submit it to ITU-T.
> 
> 
> 3 Terminal Mode
> 
> There are several internet-drafts that relate to Terminal Mode.
> But, unfortunately, there were no discussion for long months.
> As a IETF general rule, with few support, it cannot be standarized.
> Therefore, FAX WG dropped the discussion and removed it in our milestone.
>