Recommendations on Comments to draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-11/12.txt

Thanks for sending a reply (5/16/2003)

  http://www.imc.org/ietf-fax/mail-archive/msg02621.html 

to my comments (12/2002, recap 1/13/2003)

  http://www.imc.org/ietf-fax/mail-archive/msg01512.html


Here are my responses (8/21):
========================================================
(1) 'Addition of image/tiff-fx MIME type'

I accept the response of removing section 9 and instead
adding a pointer (non-normative) to the image/tiff and
image/tiff-fx registration documents.

In addition, in "Abstract":
   Files formatted according to this specification use
   the image/tiff MIME Content Type.

I suggest removing this sentence, since it is incorrect.

Section 1.2 "Approach":

   The MIME content type of the resulting file
   will be image/tiff, with an optional Application
   parameter [TIFF-REG]; see section 9.

I sugest removing this sentence, since it is incorrect.


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

the reply was
"Multiple independent interoperable implementations
documented of FillOrder=1 for all profiles, except Profile S."

But several implementations which were compliant
with RFC 2301 on this point but which are not
compliant with this document.

I don't object to moving forward with this change, but
I think it's worth noting more explicitly. For example,
an effective way of addressing the point is to
reorganize Appendix C, which lists changes to the
document since RFC 2301. E.g.,

 ** Technical changes since RFC 2301
   1. To insure interoperability, FillOrder=1 was
    made mandatory for readers of all profiles except
    profile S. Note that this change might cause
    some implementations conforming to RFC 2301
    to be considered non-compliant.

   2. The following changes were made based on
   implementation results, to bring the document
   in line with what was actually implemented:
     (points (3) and (4)

   3. The following changes were made to clarify
   the document or to bring one section in line
   with other sections:
    (e.g., point 5)

   A number of other editorial changes were made,
   but are not listed here.


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

   Orientation is an "informational" field: facsimile doesn't
   typically generate mirror images.

Nothing in the document suggestions that Orientation
is 'optional', and nothing in the document suggests that
mirror images shouldn't be generated. While many
fax viewing programs have provision for rotating, many
do not have provisions for viewing a mirror image.

I suggest annotating the description of "Orientation"
with the note 'Orientation is an informational field.' 
and 'Writers should not generate mirror images, because many
readers will not properly reverse the image before
display or print.'

=================================================
(7) PhotometricInterpretation=1 for profile F

I think I may have mis-read table 4.7 or the
interoperability report; I apologize.
==============================================
(8) Comments from section 5.2.2 of RFC 3249
in description of profile C => adding RFC 3249
as a non-normative reference. 

since RFC 3249 references RFC 2301 which is updated
by this document, it may not be clear which recommendations
in it still apply. A direct reference
to section 5.2.2 would be more useful. I suggest
adding to the description of profile C:

         Note section 5.2.2 of [RFC 3249].
==============================================
(9) and (10) applicability statement, and use of 'TIFF'

I think the main issue is that the document doesn't
really mention the main reason why we went to
the trouble to separate 'tiff' from 'tiff-fx':
that while this specification uses "TIFF" as
a baseline, widely deployed TIFF readers will
not handle many of the extensions described
here.

Your reply was "Should be OK as long as its
use is confined to this document."

I suggest extending the paragraph

   This specification of TIFF for facsimile is
   known as TIFF-FX (TIFF for Fax eXtended).

Perhaps you can come up with a better
wording, but something like the following:

   Although this specification uses the terms 'TIFF'
   and 'TIFF for Facsimile', files that
   conform to some profiles in this specification
   may not be interpreted correctly by
   TIFF applications; references to the
   format described by this specification
   should always use the term "TIFF-FX".


Regards,

Larry
-- 
http://larry.masinter.net