Re: quick notes from the Internet Fax meeting.

Claudio,

> here are my quick notes on the Internet Fax meeting of last Wednesday.
> More detailed minutes will follow. Your comments, suggestions, corrections
> are welcome. I'll also mail you the slides which were presented at the
> meeting in a later message.

Thanks for your **detailed summary** as usual.
I can use for formal report as it is.

Regarding the slides, we see only "part2" in ML.
Did you send "part1"?

> 2.1 draft-ietf-fax-service-v2-05.txt (Draft Standard for RFC 2305)
>   Reference issue of DSN (RFC1894) and TIFF-FX
> 
> The above document is now in the RFC Editor queue, this the reference
> issue is solved, as soon as it is published.

For your information, updated DSN documents for Draft Standard
(RFC 1891-1894) are in the queue.

> 3.1 draft-ietf-fax-gateway-protocol-08.txt
> 
> The document is currently being discussed at the IESG, and Ned as AD is
> contacting the editor for some changes which the IESG discussion pointed
> out.
> 
> 3.2 draft-ietf-fax-gateway-options-05.txt
> 
> This informational document is still on ISEG table. It will move forward
> jointly with the gateway-protocol one. No issues raised (did I got this
> correctly Ned?)

In the meeting, I asked Ned what the problem is.
He told us it should be modified, for example, for grammartical
point of view. Well-English is required.
There are no techinical issues.

> 4 The I-D which IESG is reviewing (Before IETF Last Call)
> 4.1 draft-ietf-fax-timely-delivery-05.txt
> 
> The Editors (dave and Graham) reported back that after the discussion
> about the possible complexity of the current proposed method they're
> investigating a possible alternate method, much simpler to implement and
> keep under control. Dave proposed thus to withdraw the current
> specification as it is, and re-draft a new one with substantial
> modifications. The editors will define if they keep the draft name, or
> remove the current one and start from a new -00 one. There was rough
> consensus on this proposal from the people present in the room. See the
> slide presented at the meeting by Dave and his accompanying message for
> details on the newly proposed approach.

The approach is to define "receipt-time" ack in MDN.
See his slide. The new one seems to be ok for us, although we have to
confirm it ML. Now, Dave is asking it!

> 5 IFAX service of ENUM (draft-toyoda-enum-faxservice-00.txt)
> 
> Toyoda-san is not present at the meeting. however Claudio presented his
> slides. The topic was also presented at the ENUM WG meeting 2 days before.
> Claudio reported that at the ENUM meeting the suggestion was to keep this
> specification as a "fax WG" document, and thus to discuss it in our
> meetings/list. At the ENUM we the generic syntax was again discussed, and
> modified, and they hoe it is now "stable". As soon as this proves true
> alto the fax in enum draft will reflect this final format. However the
> important action now is to discuss the implication of the proposal, and the
> information to convey into the ENUM fax record, in our WG. Claudio thus
> solicited the WG for input to the editor. The slides also present the
> proposed road-map. As the document does not belong to our milestones, the
> WG agreed to include it into our list, accepting the ENUM wg
> reccomendation.

Toyoda-san intended to update I-D after the syntax is fixed.
It seems that the syntax is almost agreed, he can do it sooner or later.
The goal is to have WG Last Call next March.

>  8 ITU issue
> 
> Tamura-san reported on the meeting held in October 2002. The ITU-T
> accepted the amendment  to T.37, reflecting the split of image/tiff and
> ingae/tiff-fx MIME types ("approve for Consent"). The formal approvmente
> of the amendment will occur "as a Reccomendation" when their last call
> expires, on November 28th.

I forgot to say in the meeting. For the time being,
there were no comments during the ITU last call.

> 9.1 TIFF-FX (draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-11.txt)
>     interoperability report(s)

> After this, Rob Buckley presented (see slides) (hoping you get the content
> of the tables!!! I had some problems with reading them!) a compendium

If you continue to have problems,
shall I submit the file?

> especially after we agreed some features should be removed. As last rework
> Larry reported that in his opinion the exercise of unrestricted licensing
> was not described appropriately. Tamura-san replied that he is currently
> collecting the declaration/statement and this will be made available as
> soon as it is ready.

I commented I submitted one statement last Monday!

Regards,
--
Hiroshi Tamura, Ricoh Company, LTD.
E-mail: [email protected]