interoperability concerns

(RFC 2026 4.1.2)
"The Working Group chair is responsible for
 documenting the specific implementations
 which qualify the specification ..."

(RFC 2026 6.5.1)
"A person who disagrees with a Working Group
 recommendation shall always first discuss
 the matter with the Working Group's chair(s)..."

So I am discussing the matter with the
Working Group chairs; if the disagreement
isn't resolved, we "may bring it to the
attention of the Area Director(s)..."

For the information of the working
group members, here are the reasons
why the "TIFF-FX Implementation Report by CIAJ"
does not meet the requirements for progressing
  draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-11.txt
to Draft Standard:

* The report does not describe implementation of
 draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-11.txt; it describes
 implementation of RFC 2301. There were some
 substantive as well as editorial changes in
 the 12 versions since RFC 2301.

* The report does not actually claim there
 was interoperability. Perhaps this is
 an oversight, but it only reports implementations
 and the fact that testing took place. Since
 It is rare, in an interoperability test, for all
 pairs of experimental implementations to
 interoperate. This point should be clarified
 as to the number of implementations for each
 feature that actually worked correctly.

* Some of the listed implementations were not
 "functionally equivalent or interchangable
 components" as "interoperable" is defined in
 RFC 2026 section 4.1.2; a separate software
 module that only writes "Profile L"
 not functionally equivalent or interchangable
 with a "Internet Fax device".

* Although promised, so far there have been
 no "statements of the implementors" that
 the implementations to be "considered for
 the purpose of showing the adequacy of the
 specification" that they have "taken
 adequate steps to comply" with "rights,
 or claimed rights". (RFC 2026 section 10.3.2)

* Even if you were to ignore all of the previous
 points (which you should not), within the
 interoperability report, there are still
 many features for which multiple independent
 implementations are not claimed: For example,
 there is only one writer for M listed,
 no writers or readers for 12 bit-per-sample
 profile C, only one reader for profile L
 with 1-bit RGB, 1-bit CMY, 1-bit CMYK. 

These are just examples. To construct a complete
list of features to remain when the document is
progressed to Draft Standard, it is necessary
to start with implementations that meet all of
the qualifications (independent implementations,
statements of adequate steps to comply with
licensing requirements), look at features that
have been demonstrated to interoperate with
at least two other independent implementations.
I can't predict what would remain, but my guess
is that it would correspond to profiles S and F.

The minutes of the Minneapolis meeting in March said:

 Ned reminds 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, eventually
 providing some new interoperability testing, within a
 clear framework. 

Larry
-- 
http://larry.masinter.net