TIFF-FX issues, recap

Is it your plan that the TIFF-FX issues will be resolved
before the San Francisco meeting?

On 12/11/2002 I sent two messages with comments on TIFF-FX.

On "Technical changes since RFC 2301"
(http://www.imc.org/ietf-fax/mail-archive/msg01479.html)
there was some discussion:


   (1) Addition of image/tiff-fx MIME type

Removing the tiff-fx registration from section 9 was suggested.
I think there was some disagreement on whether to retain the
'feature' that image/tiff-fx MAY be used with profile S and F.
I'm not sure the issue is resolved.

   (2) FillOrder=1 mandatory for all readers except profile S

I don't think there was any comment on this issue. I don't
think this issue is resolved.

   (3) elimination of ColorMap for profile L

I think it was agreed that this was an allowable change if
it was actually supported by implementations. This issue
will be resolved if it is clear from the interoperability
reports that there are interoperable readers that don't require
a ColorMap.

  (4) changes to profile M (from Annex C)
     Compression=1 for LayerBaseColorIFDs, adding StripByteCounts

I don't think there was any comment on this point. So I don't
think this issue is resolved.

   (5) addition of GlobalParamtersIFD, FaxProfile, CodingMethods
   as options to profile F (in the table in section 4.7).

I don't think there was any explicit comment on this point.
So this issue is not resolved.

I also sent another message, subject "TIFF-FX: comments on
specification"
http://www.imc.org/ietf-fax/mail-archive/msg01480.html

There was no reply to my message. So I don't think these issues are
resolved:

  (1) Orientation != 1   (optional for both readers and writers,
      will result in non-interoperability for mirror-images)

  (2) PhotometricInterpretation=1 for profile F
     (optional for readers and writers, will result in poor
     interoperability)

  (3) Comments from section 5.2.2 of RFC 3249 should be
      folded into description of profile C.

  (4) Need an applicability statement to insure that this is
      not taken as a general 'document image' standard.

  (5) Editorially change places where the word 'TIFF' is used
      incorrectly to describe 'TIFF-FX' (especially in the
      phrase 'TIFF for Facsimile').

      I started to write up editorial suggestions for rewording
      the use of the word 'TIFF'.

  (6) The IPR statement in the document only points to
      www.ietf.org/ipr.html, but that location does not contain
      any mention of JBIG patents. Should it also point to the
      ITU IPR statements?

Thanks,

Larry