Last Modified: 2003-01-20
The WG will produce a final increment of specification for supporting a "full" equivalence of T.30 service over Internet mail. Technical work for this effort includes timely delivery, [image] feature selection/negotiation, document privacy, and integrated specification of Full-mode Facsimile Profile of Internet Mail (FFPIM).
For interconnecting fax services over the dial-up telephone network and carriage of facsimile message data over the Internet, two types of interface systems are required:
o Internet/Dial-up Fax gateway, moving data from the Internet to classic or Internet-aware dial-up fax products and services
o Dial-up/Internet Fax gateway, moving data from classic or Internet-aware dial-up fax products and services to the Internet
The working group will also consider the requirements for gatewaying Internet Mail (as profiled for facsimile Simple, Extended modes and FFPIM) with T.30 Facsimile.
The working group will specifically take note of quality of service issues and might decide to produce an Implementer's Guide.
T.30 facsimile carries expectations of message privacy, so that FFPIM must specify a basic facility via the Internet. Although T.30 does not provide document integrity, users frequently believe that it does. Consequently the Faxext working group will also seek specification of a basic authentication facility over the Internet.
T.30 facsimile provides for receiver capability identification to the sender, allowing a sender to provide the "best" fax image the receiver can handle. The Faxext working group will consider mechanisms to provide similar functionality for fax images transferred by e-mail.
Additional areas of discussion will be: Annotated fax messages and universal messaging issues as they relate to FFPIM, as well as schema and TIFF extensions required to support the new JBIG-2 (T.88) compression method.
The working group will continue the excellent pattern of coordinating activities with other facsimile-related standards bodies, in particular the ITU, VPIM and other WGs, and with using work from related IETF efforts.
| Done | Submit Internet-Draft of terminology document | |
| Done | Submit Internet-Draft of data specifications | |
| Done | Submit Internet-Draft of messaging-related specification | |
| Done | Submit Internet-Draft of operational constraints document | |
| Done | Submit terminology document to IESG for publication | |
| Done | Submit data specifications to IESG for consideration as a standards track document | |
| Done | Submit messaging-related specification to IESG for consideration as a standards track document | |
| Done | Submit operational constraints document to IESG for publication as an Informational document | |
| Done | Submit final draft for FFPIM to IESG for publication | |
| Done | Submit final draft of gateway requirements | |
| JUL 01 | Submit second draft of Fax status information | |
| NOV 01 | Submit final draft of TIFF-fx extensions | |
| NOV 01 | Submit final draft of schema for TIFF-fx extensions | |
| DEC 01 | Submit final draft of Fax status information |
| RFC | Status | Title |
|---|---|---|
| RFC2301 | PS | File Format for Internet Fax |
| RFC2302 | PS | Tag Image File Format (TIFF) - image/tiff MIME Sub-type Registration |
| RFC2303 | PS | Minimal PSTN address format in Internet Mail |
| RFC2304 | PS | Minimal FAX address format in Internet Mail |
| RFC2305 | PS | A Simple Mode of Facsimile Using Internet Mail |
| RFC2306 | I | Tag Image File Format (TIFF) - F Profile for Facsimile |
| RFC2542 | I | Terminology and Goals for Internet Fax |
| RFC2530 | PS | Indicating Supported Media Features Using Extensions to DSN and MDN |
| RFC2531 | PS | Content feature schema for Internet fax |
| RFC2532 | PS | Extended Facsimile Using Internet Mail |
| RFC2846 | PS | GSTN address element extensions in e-mail services |
| RFC2879 | PS | Content feature schema for Internet fax |
| RFC2880 | I | Internet fax T.30 Feature Mapping |
| RFC3191 | DS | Minimal GSTN address format in Internet Mail |
| RFC3192 | DS | Minimal FAX address format in Internet Mail |
| RFC3297 | PS | Content Negotiation for Internet Messaging Services |
| RFC3249 | I | Implementers Guide for Facsimile Using Internet Mail |
| RFC3250 | PS | Tag Image File Format Fax eXtended (TIFF-FX) -image/tiff-fx MIME Sub-type Registration |
| RFC3302 | PS | Tag Image File Format (TIFF) - image/tiff MIME Sub-type Registration |
Internet Fax meeting: TUESDAY, March 19 at 1300-1410
==============================
CHAIRS:
Claudio Allocchio <Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it>
Hiroshi Tamura <tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp>
----------------------------------------
-----------------------------
0 Opening
----------------------------------------
-----------------------------
FAX WG meeting was held on March 19, 2003. Claudio Allocchio and Hiroshi
Tamura welcomed the participants and started the meeting.
----------------------------------------
-----------------------------
1 Agenda Bashing
----------------------------------------
-----------------------------
As there were no requested changes to the proposed agenda, we
proceeded along with it. See the slide "fax-0". The slide also contains
brief status of some documents, which especially do not have the slide
itself in this meeting.
----------------------------------------
-----------------------------
2 Service
- draft-ietf-fax-service-v2-05.txt (for Draft Standard of RFC 2305)
----------------------------------------
-----------------------------
Hiroshi Tamura reported that
draft-ietf-fax-service-v2-05.txt (the revision for Draft Standard of RFC
2305) was approved by IESG and is in the RFC editor's queue. Before
publication the document needs also TIFF-FX (currently
draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-12.txt) to be ready, as there are references to the
latter. Also, it was reported that DSN, which the document refers,
becomes Draft Standard.
----------------------------------------
-----------------------------
3 Gateway
- draft-ietf-fax-gateway-protocol-08.txt (for Propose Standard)
- draft-ietf-fax-gateway-options-05.txt (for Informational)
----------------------------------------
-----------------------------
Hiroshi Tamura reported that the two documents regarding gateways,
draft-ietf-fax-gateway-protocol-08.txt (for Propose Standard) and
draft-ietf-fax-gateway-options-05.txt (for Informational) need some
refinement, as requested by the ADs, after the WG last call was
finished. The editors are working on it, and will submit the updated
versions just after the meeting.
----------------------------------------
-----------------------------
4 Addressing
- draft-allocchio-gstn-04.txt (for Propose Standard)
----------------------------------------
-----------------------------
Claudio Allocchio reported that
draft-allocchio-gstn-04.txt (for Proposed Standard) has been under IESG
revision. There was only a change in the abstract as a result of the
discussion, as the IESG concluded it is inappropriate to have
normative text (a capital MUST) in an abstract. The change will be made
directly by the RFC editor during publication. Formal approval is
expected by the next IESG meeting in two weeks time.
----------------------------------------
-----------------------------
5 TIFF-FX
- draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-12.txt (for Draft Standard)
----------------------------------------
-----------------------------
Slides: fax-3 and fax-4
An updated version of
draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-12.txt (for Draft Standard) was published, taking
into account the comments which came in during the discussion. As Rob
Buckely, one of the editors of the document, could not be present,
Claudio Allocchio presented his slides on his behalf.
The slide fax-3 contains the status of the document, combined matrix that
shows features or attributes supported from the two
implementation reports and the plan. In particular, 3 features were
removed from the specification, as there were lacking support by
implementations, while a further refinement of the
interoperability report and attached matrix is under way. It is
expected that the editors will present the final
interoperability report within a short time after the meeting. Also, new
IPR statements are being collected, and published on the IETF web site.
The slide fax-4 explains for one comment based on the previous
(tiff-fx-11) and an additional check about raised points in the
document. It implies the addition of RFC 3249 (Implementers Guide) as NON
normative reference. Also, ITU IPR statements will be added as a
reference. Most of the other points were examined, but the editors
recommended no changes to the text. Claudio Allocchio asked the WG, and it
agreed with the editors recommendations. The question will be taken again on
the ML, before the new version (tiff-fx-13) is published. In this new
version, also, an editorial fix in section 7.2.1 will be made.
Ned Freed, Area Director, added that also RFC 3250 (image/tiff-fx
registration) and RFC 3302 (image/tiff registration), which are
currently Proposed Standards, will need an editorial update before they are
progressed together with tiff-fx specification to Draft Standard. Both
RFCs are referred in tiff-fx document. RFC 3250 refers tiff-fx
document. (After the meeting, we find RFC 3302 does not refer tiff-fx
document.)
As a note to the AD, Claudio Allocchio suggested to the ADs that some
re-ordering of the interoperability reports and IPR statements pages on the
WEB site, at least indexing the documents by WG, should be done. Ned
Freed, agreed that there is a need for it and will take the point
forward.
----------------------------------------
-----------------------------
6 IFAX service of ENUM
- draft-ietf-fax-faxservice-enum-00.txt (for Proposed Standard)
The updated version is at:
http://www.brandenburg.com/ietf/draft-ie
tf-fax-faxservice-enum-01.txt
----------------------------------------
-----------------------------
Slide: fax-2
A new version of
draft-ietf-fax-faxservice-enum-01.txt was ready for the meeting. As
Kiyoshi Toyoda could not attend, the slides were presented by
Yoshihiro Ida. The new version conforms to the ENUM registration syntax
which would be then approved at the ENUM WG meeting the day after.
Hiroshi Tamura and Claudio Allocchio asked for consensus on the current
specification, and the WG supported it. The WG last call will be done soon as
the formal updated version is published after the meeting.
----------------------------------------
-----------------------------
7 SMTP Service Extension for Content Negotiation (ESMTP-CONNEG)
- draft-ietf-fax-esmtp-conneg-06.txt (for Proposed Standard)
----------------------------------------
-----------------------------
Slide: fax-1
Dave Crocker reported the significant changes which were made to SMTP
Service Extension for Content Negotiation
(draft-ietf-fax-esmtp-conneg-06.txt) to take into account the many
comments an objections which came about it, especially by SMTP experts. In
particular, the intention is to create a mechanism which can also work in
case intermediate MTAs acting among them, i.e., when there is no direct
end-to-end interactions between i-fax devices.
The new ESMTP extension CONPERM is introduced. CONPERM allows the
originator to pass conversion permission to sending MTAs in the email
relaying sequence. When a sending MTA then receives CONNEG
information about the recipient, it may perform a conversion. CONNEG is
also the new ESMTP extension, which is the original idea in this
document. With CONNEG, the response to "RCPT TO" contains capability
information.
Also, new MIME headers are introduced per message for this purpose. One is
"Content-Convert", which specifies permitted conversion capability for the
associated content. The other is "Content-Previous", which shows the
previous representation of the content.
There was a discussion about the fact that all features specific to
internet fax should not be described in the specification. The editor and
the WG agreed that the specification will be totally independent of its
internet fax.
As most of the discussions came from the wide IETF community, and the
scope of the specification is not by itself restricted to i-fax, it was
agreed that the first WG last call will be made on our ML, then the
discussion will be opened also on the SMTP ML and to the wider IETF
lists.
(As there are some comments before the meeting and the editors agreed to
modify some of them, the updated I-D will be required before FAX WG last
call.)
----------------------------------------
-----------------------------
8 Timely-Delivery
- No document now (for Proposed Standard)
----------------------------------------
-----------------------------
Slide: fax-5
Dave Crocker presented the new approach to the timely delivery problem. The
old specification was dismissed at our previous (Atlanta) meeting, as its
implementation would have impacted in a wide way on the existing
infrastructure to expect for a reasonable level of support.
Thus, he now tries to obtain performance from the existing
infrastructure, and obtain a timely receipt from the user agent
involved in the final transaction, using MDN extensions
("Receipt-time"). In order for infrastructure to support
Timely-delivery performance there are various possible solutions.
Possibly, a separate TCP port where messages have an implied timely
delivery request, or upgrading the core specifications to make
mandatory some current options (Deliverby), and/or adding SRV record flags
where MTA support "APT" (Accountable Predictable Timely) mail service.
The WG briefly asked for clarification on the different options, and the new
internet-draft will soon be requested to prepare and it will try to
clarify the different scenarios of possible implementation.
----------------------------------------
-----------------------------
9 FFPIM
- draft-ietf-fax-ffpim-01.txt (for Proposed Standard)
----------------------------------------
-----------------------------
Dave Crocker explained that FFPIM is not modified since the last
meeting, as it depends on both ESMTP-CONNEG and
Timely-delivery. He also told it is easy to complete after two
documents are finished, as it refers only documents defining technical
documents and it has little techinical issues itself. Just waiting for
completion of the two documents.
----------------------------------------
-----------------------------
10 Closing
----------------------------------------
-----------------------------
At the end of the meeting, the co-chairs proposed that, unless there are
major specific technical issues to be solved, this was the last
physical meeting of the FAX WG. The ML will be used to discuss
remaining issues, and for last call of pending documents. The
co-chairs thanked all the participants to the WG meeting, present and
past, for their efforts and support during these years. See final page of
the slide "fax-0".
|