RE: Draft letter to ITU-T

Hiroshi,

Is the letter below expected to resolve the problem obliquely described as

  "ITU-T T.37 distribution was suspended pending Copyright aspects
resolution"

at


http://www.itu.int/rec/recommendation.asp?type=folders&lang=e&parent=T-REC-T.
37

?


Or is an additional copyright issue with T.37 or the referenced documents,
beyond the IPR in the letter below?

-d


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On
> Behalf Of Hiroshi Tamura
> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 4:18 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [IETF-FAX] 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.
>