RE: Status of and comments on the draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-11.txt d ocument

"McIntyre, Lloyd" <[email protected]> Wed, 20 Nov 2002 13:48:22 -0800
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.fax
Message-ID <[email protected]> 
Tamura-san and Ned,
The attached message from Ned reflects a decision to change image/tiff from
BCP to standards track. I had protested this change, however, my protest was
rejected.
This is the reason why the editors did not raise an issue during the 48 hour
check period.

Lloyd

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hiroshi Tamura [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 12:52 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Status of and comments on the 
> draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-11.txt
> document
> 
> 
> Ned,
> 
> Thanks for your advice.
> 
> As a co-chair, I have a comment for RFC 3302.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Attached were the request for IESG considerdation
> for image/tiff MIME sub-type registration from our WG (2nd one).
> 
> We requestd it as BCP. I am a little surprised that
> RFC 3302 was approved as Proposed Standard.
> Unfortunately, nobody found it even within 48 hours check
> from RFC-Editor.
> 
> Anyway, my questions are,
> why is the status to changed to proposed from BCP?
> and
> is your intension that RFC 3302 should move to Draft Standard
> and BCP is not appropriate status?
> 
> Regards,
> --
> Hiroshi Tamura, Co-chair of IETF-FAX WG
> E-mail: [email protected]
> 
> 
>
IESG - change to Standards Track.txt (text/plain, 2.1 KB) 
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 9:52 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: IESG comments on draft-ietf-fax-tiff-regbis-04.txt


This document was on the IESG's agenda today. Unfortunately, a number of issues
have arisen that need to be addressed.

First and foremost is the document status. The IESG doesn't believe publication
as BCP is appropriate. It really needs to be on the standards track. So what's
going to happen now is that a new IETF last call will be issued for standards
track.

Now, in order to expedite this process the IESG has already reviewed the
document and found a number of issues that need to be addressed:

  This document needs a changes section describing how it differs
  from RFC 2302.

  The abstract needs to be revised to expand the various acronyms used
  in it.

  A security considerations section needs to be added. The one in the
  media type registration is insufficient.

  The following text needs to be added to the description of the
  application parameter:

        An "application" field is a hint to the receiver.  It MUST NOT
        be used as a blind request to execute some arbitrary program.

        Instead, it should be viewed as nothing more than an
        indication of what sort of application would be able to
        handle the content most appropriately.

  The bibliography needs to be separated into normative and nonnormative
  references.

  There needs to be a nonnormative reference to RFC 2302 in the bibliography.

  Please change the "Encoding Considerations" in section 7 to
  read:

     Encoding Considerations: This media type consists of binary
     data. The base64 should be used on transports that cannot
     accomodate binary data directly.

So the process going forward will be first for the authors to issue a revised
draft that addresses these points. This needs to be done as quickly as
possible. Once the revision is out there will be an immediate last call for
proposed. And once that's over the IESG should be able to approve the document
quite quickly given that it has already been reviewed.

				Ned