Status of and comments on the draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-11.txt document

It came to my attention just after today's WG meeting ended that there is
confusion about the status of this document. Apparently some people believed
that the document is currently in IESG review after having been last called
almost two years ago. This is absolutely not the case.

First let me point out that the datatracker is the place to go for information
about the status of documents. If you go to the datatracker you will find
that the current state of the document is "AD Review". Documents under
AD review have yet to get to the last call stage.

Now, it is certainly true that this document has been last called before.
Specifically, it was last called back on 1-Dec-2000. But due to objections
raised during that last call period the decision was made to proceed with
two MIME types rather than one. This effectively reset the entire process.

The effect of the process reset can be clearly seen by examining how the
companion document draft-ietf-fax-tiff-regbis-05.txt was handled. This document
was also last called back on 1-Dec-2000. But after it was revised and the
registration was split a new last call was issued on 25-Mar-2002 along with the
new document draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-reg-01.txt.

It would perhaps have been cleaner to issue a last call on
draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-11.txt for proposed along with the last call for the
split MIME registrations (now RFC 3302 and RFC 3250). But this is a substantive
document and publication of it entails a lot of work. A reference to the
original tiff-fx specification RFC 2301 was deemed to be sufficient.

In any case, the path forward from this point is that a new version of
draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-11.txt needs to be produced. In addition to the points
raised at the meeting, I'd like to see a couple of other things addressed:

(1) The IPR notification currently appears as part of the abstract. It needs to
    appear as its own, independent section after the introduction.

(2) The references need to be split into normative and informative groups.
    (The reference to RFC 2421 is one that's clearly informative; the rest may
    all be normative.)

(3) It would also be nice to update the reference to RFC 2421 to refer to
    the new VPIMv2 specifications draft-ietf-vpim-vpimv2r2-05.txt.

(4) The reference to [TIFF-REG] needs to be updated to refer to RFC 3302. But
    see below.

(5) The reference to [TIFF-FX-REG] needs to be updated as well. More on that
    below.

We have multiple versions of three interlocking document here, which makes the
whole moving to draft situation a bit tricky. My proposed plan is to simply ask
for RFC 3302 to move to draft as-is based on the current TIFF interop report.
(Note that RFC 3302 was approved as proposed rather than as a BCP so this is a
necessary step.) However, RFC 3250 cannot advance as-is since it contains a
normative reference to RFC 2301. I therefore suggest creating a new
Internet-Draft containing the text of RFC 2301 with the only change being to
refer to draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-11.txt rather than to RFC 2301. The
[TIFF-FX-REG] reference then needs to change to refer to this new draft.

Once this new draft and the revised draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-11.txt are out I'll
review and it all looks OK I'll ask to have

    RFC 3302
    <New draft version of RFC 3250>
    <New version draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-11.txt>

last called for draft standard.

				Ned