TIFF-FX format re-testing is necessary

Folks,

As the draft minutes says,

> Ned Freed reminded that the IESG is following closely this problem and in
> particular the TIFF-FX issue. Thus the IESG, having received Larry's
> objections, will put a careful consideration to verify if the raised
> points are consistent or not. It is thus strongly suggested to the editors
> and the WG to make any possible additional effort to clarify these points.

In the meeting, Ned did not say clearly that it is necessary
to do the testing for TIFF-FX format.
But, after the meeting, Ned, Claudio and I talked about
how to deal with the Draft Standard process as smoothly as possible.
In the event, it was agreed that the re-testing is necessary.
If the situation is not changed, the same objection would be done again.
We are not in court, but, in order to clear the doubts, we agreed we should
do the re-testing.

I must say, Japanese manufactures already had the testing
in 1999 thru 2001, regarding Profile S and F. We already have the report:
http://www.ciaj.or.jp/ciaj/ciaj-e/quart/vol-19/1903.html.
It is the report in 1999 and one of the reports. There is another report,
but it is not written in English.

My Japanese colleagues and I can modify the report for Draft Standard
consideration and submit it to IETF.
Also, I must say, the report does not have anything to do with
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/Implementations/TIFF-FAX-implementation.txt.

Thus, I propose the new testing should be done for Profile J, C, L and M.
Ned and Claudio already accepted it.

Anyway, I encourage all of you to attend the testing again.
The exact schedule is not decided yet, but, if possible,
it is better to do it before the next IETF meeting.

Now, I am trying to find the implementation information in Japan.
It surely can be done for Profile J and C. There are two independent
implementations. Regarding Profile L and M implementations in Japan,
now, I am collecting the information. There was surely the implemenations.

If you have the implementation information for Profile J, C, L and M,
please say here. Any information is appreciated.

Also, I would like to say, Service I-D wating for Draft Standard
is dependent on TIFF-FX. For the I-D, we need to make it to be
Draft Standard.

Please understand the situation, everyone.

Claudio,
if there are something you should follow, please comment!

Regards,
--
Hiroshi Tamura, Co-chair of IETF-FAX WG
E-mail: [email protected]