Re: quick notes from the Internet Fax meeting.

This is ONLY the issue of our minutes at Atlanta.

> > Claudio reported that a formal appeal to the IESG has been 
> > submitted by Larry Masinter about the problems he sees inside 
> > the currently available interoperability, licensing reports 
> > and the tiff-fx file format specification. 
> 
> My appeal was specifically to the decision of the chair(s)
> that the current interoperability report was adequate
> for the advancement of the document to Draft Standard.
> At the Atlanta meeting, I noted that I had gotten no
> response from the chairs or the area director to my
> email messages.

"Regarding some issued raised by Larry Masinter,
there were no response at the meeting."

I commented about license issue.
Please see my slide.

> > Before going to 
> > details about these concerns, Claudio reminded the WG that at 
> > the London IETF, after a consultation between the TIFF-FX 
> > editors, the WG (present and past) Chairs and the IAB, it was 
> > decided that a single image/tiff MIME type was inappropriate, 
> > and thus we should correct this error, registering two 
> > separate type. This also should be considered when reading 
> > the early documents about interoperability and file format, 
> > as they were referring to image/tiff also when the format was 
> > actually image/tiff-fx. Larry noted that this is anyhow a 
> > possible source of confusion; comments were however made by 
> > people who took part into that event that, even if the name 
> > was image/tiff, they were actually testing image/tiff-fx 
> > features. Larry objected again that some of the inside 
> > specification were meanwhile changed, but it was noted that 
> > this might eventually require some testing about these 
> > specific features, and not invalidate the whole results.

> This part of the summary of the working group meeting is
> confusing; where you say "Larry noted" and "Larry objected"
> above, this is not something that happened in Atlanta, just
> that you talked about in Atlanta. I'm not sure you mentioned 
> "London" or just "previous meetings", but, for what it's worth,
> the previous meeting in Minneapolis:
> http://www.imc.org/ietf-fax/mail-archive/msg01179.html
> we discussed both renewed testing for the MIME
> type testing and TIFF-FX testing. As far as a meeting
> summary for Atlanta goes, you might just note that
> you reviewed the current status as determined by
> previous meetings.

Yes, but, it is the fact that Claudio explained the background
of the content type issue. We should include in our minutes.

> > a compendium summary driven out from the 2 
> > available interop tests performed. He reported that is all 
> > cases listed as "one implementation" this means "one reader 
> > and one writer". The tables reveal that there are a very 
> > limited number of cases (2 only) where there is only support 
> > by one implementer. Thus he proposed that these features are 
> > dropped from the tiff-fx specification (unless meanwhile it 
> > is reported that an additional implementation is available 
> > for them). The WG expressed consensus on this removal from 
> > the specification. 
> 
> I think the question is whether "one reader and one writer"
> counts as "multiple independent interoperable implementations".
> I think this may be an important issue. If there are
> implementations that are only a reader, is that "1/2" in
> the summary or 1?

Good question. Please wait when combining the matrices.
But, I do not think the answer is not necessary for our minutes.

> > Larry then presented (see his slides) the 
> > objections which he is moving to the current reports. 
> 
> I think "raising about" is more accurate than
> "moving to" since the new objections are not
> identical, but mainly discuss different problems
> with the new report.

OK, we should use "raising about" here.

> The summary below is disjointed and seems to miss
> some of the key points and mischaracterize point 8
> ("Proposal for Interoperability") as an "objection".
> Please refer to actual slides used
> http://www.imc.org/ietf-fax/mail-archive/pdf00009.pdf
> 
> Slides 2-7 list the objections:
> * wrong document
> * latest report doesn't document interoperability
> * implementations not independent
>   same company or same source
> * implementations not independent
>   "replaceable components"
> * no evidence of IPR licensing
> * many features have insufficient implementations listed

OK, what you mention here (or your file) should be included
in our meeting minutes in some way.
It is the fact that you presented at our meeting.

> > The WG 
> > asked if it is possible to have the original appeal Larry 
> > sent to the IESG, but he replied that the process does not 
> > require the WG to be involved in this, as it regards the IESG 
> > and WG chairs only. 
> 
> re "it regards the IESG and WG chairs only":
> The responsibility for documenting interoperability
> is for the WG chairs, who may or may not choose to
> involve the WG. I did not say I had any objection to
> sharing this with the WG, I said it was the choice
> of the WG chairs.

OK. But, as Ned summarised the issue in ML,
we need to follow it. At first, WG should handle.

> > However Claudio reported that what's 
> > presented in Larry's slides reflect what's in the submitted 
> > complaint. During the presentation Ned, Dave and others 
> > objected about some points. 
> 
> I think there were questions raised here, just as
> there were questions raised about Rob's presentation.

I combine it with your slide in some way.

> > In particular about the request 
> > that it should be an Internet Fax specific 
> > product/implementation which is used to test the file format, 
> > while it seems that in some cases a file reader/write was 
> > used, externally from an i-fax implementation. As it is a 
> > "file format" we should test the file format, and this can be 
> > done with specific file tools like readers and writers, no 
> > matter if these are then the same being implemented inside 
> > i-fax implementation. 
> 
> I believe I noted this myself as an area of disagreement
> in slide 5, but I don't think there was an objection
> at the meeting.

OK. After the above sentences, we include you objection.

Although I do not include at our minutes, I think the editors
commented for this issue, as the above sentences.
I do not remember when and where.

> > James 
> > Rafferty reminded that the tiff-fx files for all the profiles 
> > are available since (1998?) at the ITU repository, and those 
> > were the files being used, as official benchmarks.
> 
> I don't think James said anything about the "files
> being used as official benchmarks". James reminded
> us that some files are available at the ITU repository.
> I don't know what it means to be an "official benchmark".

I delete "as official benchmarks".

> > Larry objected also that the implementation shown are not 
> > indipendent one, and they might derive from the same public 
> > domain or licensed source code. There were again 
> > counter-objections that this is not to be proven by the WG, 
> > but it enough for us to trust the declaration of the 
> > participants in the interop tests, where they report 
> > indipendent implementations. 
> 
> In slide 4, I said that the latest report includes
> many implementations from the same company with
> no assertion of independence, and there are overlaps
> between the previous report and the latest report.

Although I do not include, We have assertion of independence.
Also, there are two overlaps. Regarding slide 4,
I include in some ways, as I said above.

> > As last rework 
> > Larry reported that in his opinion the exercise of 
> > unrestricted licensing was not described appropriately. 
> 
> I don't understand this sentence. I don't know what
> "at last rework" means, and I don't know what
> "unrestricted licensing" is. In slide 6, I said
> there was evidence that licensing is required and
> there were no statements of licensing.

OK. We include as you claimed in slide 6.

Next week, I think I can send the next draft minutes.

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