Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-fax-ffpim-02.txt

To all,

> >> 	Title		: Full-mode Fax Profile for Internet Mail:  FFPIM
> >> 	Filename	: draft-ietf-fax-ffpim-02.txt
> 
> HT> Could you briefly tell us the difference from -01?

>             3. Asks about the current status of the reference to TIFF-FX

The latest version is -13. We ping our ADs many times.
Sooner or later, I do again.

>             4. Asks whether TIFF-FX support should be required for all
>             FFPIM implementation.

> I believe that the only interesting item on this list is #4:
> 
>      My own recommendation is that support for TIFF-FX is be classed
>      as a SHOULD, rather than a MAY or MUST.
> 
> A "MAY" does not really mean much.  Participating FFPIM implementation
> "may" support any MIME content-type it wants to.
> 
> A "MUST" imposes a higher level of content type support on an FFPIM
> implementation than is present for a T.30 system.  The goal for FFPIM
> has been to emulate the T.30 environment, rather than to require more
> than T.30.  So a "SHOULD" encourages support for TIFF-FX but allows
> implementations to decline to offer support, but still be compliant with
> FFPIM.

I agree. "SHOULD" is best.

Any comments?
I wait for a while. If not, we go to the WG LC.

--
Hiroshi Tamura