Re: Draft letter to ITU-T

To all:

There were no comments in our ML. But, in fact, there was a request
to modify about the IPR issue. Normally, we cannot do anything
unless he/she says in ML. But, there was something to consider and
this issue is the critical issue for the people concerned.
Thus, I accepted some points.

It may not be fair, but, please understand the situation.
I'm sorry that it is not well-managed.

I also changed in the last paragraph regarding T.37 in TIFF-FX.

Also, it is impossible to prepare the letter which all our members
can agree to. Please accept the new version below,
if there are not apparently wrong descriptions.

Also, I would like to say to thank Patrik and Claudio for their help.

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 records of
the IETF meetings and the mailing lists of the WG.
FAX WG agreed to the Draft Stadard process, as usual.

As a matter of policy, the IESG does not evaluate IPR claims. 
There was some confusion about the nature of the claims and how
to deal with the situation. The IESG and IAB consulted about this,
and based on their evaluation of the situation, encouraged FAX WG
to continue progressing the documents and submit them for appropriate
consideration to the IESG as soon as they appear to be ready,
without delay due to IPR claims around TIFF.

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 and there are
some concerns about them. Fax WG, along with IESG and IAB, are now trying
to resolve those issues. Our group believes that the status of T.37 is not
changed. But, the reference should be changed after the new RFC documents
are approved. At that time, Fax WG will submit them 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.