Current Meeting Report
Jabber Logs

2.1.6 Internet Fax (fax)

In addition to this official charter maintained by the IETF Secretariat, there is additional information about this working group on the Web at: -- Additional FAX WG Page
NOTE: This charter is a snapshot of the 55th IETF Meeting in Altanta, Georgia USA. It may now be out-of-date.

Last Modifield: 05/08/2002

Claudio Allocchio <>
Hiroshi Tamura <>
Applications Area Director(s):
Ned Freed <>
Patrik Faltstrom <>
Applications Area Advisor:
Ned Freed <>
Mailing Lists:
General Discussion:
To Subscribe:
In Body: subscribe
Description of Working Group:
Previous IETF efforts developed specifications for simple and extended Internet mail-based facsimile service profiles, tailored to interwork with the world of T.30 facsimile. This extension effort will take care of differential routing between classic Internet mail and timely deliveries, and consider with particular regard universal messaging issues and its relation with Internet mail.

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.

Goals and Milestones:
Done  Submit Internet-Draft of data specifications
Done  Submit Internet-Draft of terminology document
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
  • - draft-ietf-fax-service-v2-05.txt
  • - draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-11.txt
  • - draft-ietf-fax-implementers-guide-08.txt
  • - draft-ietf-fax-timely-delivery-05.txt
  • - draft-ietf-fax-tiff-regbis-05.txt
  • - draft-ietf-fax-gateway-protocol-08.txt
  • - draft-ietf-fax-gateway-options-05.txt
  • - draft-ietf-fax-esmtp-conneg-03.txt
  • - draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-reg-01.txt
  • Request For Comments:
    RFC2302 PS Tag Image File Format (TIFF) - image/tiff MIME Sub-type Registration
    RFC2303 PS Minimal PSTN address format in Internet Mail
    RFC2301 PS File Format for Internet Fax
    RFC2304 PS Minimal FAX address format in Internet Mail
    RFC2306 I Tag Image File Format (TIFF) - F Profile for Facsimile
    RFC2305 PS A Simple Mode of Facsimile Using Internet Mail
    RFC2542 I Terminology and Goals for Internet Fax
    RFC2532 PS Extended Facsimile Using Internet Mail
    RFC2531 PS Content feature schema for Internet fax
    RFC2530 PS Indicating Supported Media Features Using Extensions to DSN and MDN
    RFC2846 PS GSTN address element extensions in e-mail services
    RFC2880 I Internet fax T.30 Feature Mapping
    RFC2879 PS Content feature schema for Internet fax
    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

    Current Meeting Report

    WEDNESDAY, November 20 at 0900-1045 
    Claudio Allocchio <> 
    Hiroshi Tamura <> 
    0 Opening
    FAX WG meeting was held jointly with VPIM WG, on November 20 2002.  
    Hiroshi Tamura, co-chair of FAX WG, welcomed the participants and 
    started the meeting. 
    1 Agenda Bashing
    The agenda was approved without changes.
    2 The I-Ds which IESG approved and are in RFC editor's queue
    2.1 draft-ietf-fax-service-v2-05.txt (Draft Standard for RFC 2305)
    Hiroshi Tamura commented that the document is now in the RFC Editor's 
    queue.  There is reference issue for TIFF-FX and DSN (RFC 1894). Updated DSN 
    documents for Draft Standard (RFC 1891-1894) are also in the queue.  
    Regarding TIFF-FX, the WG postponed the discussion later, as it was in the 
    latter part of the agenda.
    After the reference issue is solved, it can be published.
    3 The I-Ds for which IETF Last Call was finished
    3.2 draft-ietf-fax-gateway-options-05.txt
    The documents are currently being discussed at the IESG. Ned Freed, Area 
    Director, is contacting the editor for some changes which the IESG 
    discussion pointed out.
    Hiroshi Tamura confirmed Ned about the problems. Ned told us that the 
    documents should be modified, for example, for gramartical point of view.  
    Well-English documents are required. The WG confirmed that there are no 
    techinical issues.
    4 The I-D which IESG is reviewing (Before IETF Last Call)
    4.1 draft-ietf-fax-timely-delivery-05.txt
    The WG Last Call already finished. But, after the Yokohama meeting, the 
    basic questions were raised in our ML, regarding how to realize 
    "timely-delivery". Through the discussion, the editors, Dave Crocker and 
    Graham Klyne, judged that the current proposed method is possibly 
    complex.  Thus, they are investigating a possible alternate method, which is 
    simpler to implement and keep under control.
    Dave proposed thus to withdraw the current specification as it is, and 
    re-draft a new one with substantial modifications. The editors will 
    decide if they keep the draft name, or remove the current one and start 
    from a new -00 one. The approach is to define "receipt-time" ack in MDN.  
    See the slide presented at the meeting by Dave and his accompanying 
    message for details on the newly proposed approach.
    There was rough consensus on this proposal from the people present in the 
    room. It is confirmed in our ML.
    4.2 draft-allocchio-gstn-04.txt
    Claudio Allocchio, the editor of the I-D, reported that after the IETF Last 
    Call was over, only 1 further comment was received. He and Patrik 
    Faltstrom, Area Director, reviewed this comment, and agreed it is 
    totally an off topic comment. They just decided not to make any further 
    modification to the current draft. Patrik will prepare the AD write-up for 
    the IESG and send it for the approval.
    5 IFAX service of ENUM 
    Kiyoshi Toyoda, the editor of the I-D, was not present at the meeting.  
    Instead of him, Claudio Allcchio presented his slides.
    Before Atlanta meeting, the structure of ENUM service field was not fixed 
    yet. But, this was the topic that ENUM WG were mainly discussing.  It was 
    also presented at the ENUM WG meeting 2 days ago.  Claudio reported that at 
    ENUM meeting the suggestion was to keep this specification as a "Fax WG" 
    document, and thus to discuss it in our meetings/list. At the ENUM WG, the 
    generic syntax was again discussed and modified, and they hope it is now 
    "stable". As soon as this proves true, the I-D will reflect this final 
    However the important action now is to discuss the implication of the 
    proposal, and the information to convey into the ENUM fax record, in our WG. 
    Claudio thus solicited the WG for input to the editor.  The slides also 
    showed the proposed road-map. Kiyoshi aims to update the I-D after the 
    syntax is fixed and to have WG Last Call next March.
    As the document does not belong to our milestones, the WG agreed to 
    include it into our list, accepting the ENUM wg recommendation.
    6 FFPIM (draft-ietf-fax-ffpim-01.txt)
    Hiroshi Tamura checked the discussion report of the Yokohama meeting and the 
    two results were:
    - Use of ESMTP options as SHOULD
    - FFPIM conformance requires RFC2305 and RFC2532 conformance
    But, the document was not yet updated. Dave Crocker, the editor of the I-D, 
    apologized for having forgotten to do this and took up the action again.  He 
    told us that he would do it, considering the current situation about 
    Timely-Delivery and ESMPT-CONNEG.
    7 Confirmation of dropping "Fax Status Information" in our milestone
    Hiroshi Tamura said that the WG tracker indicated there is one issue in our 
    milestone, which we forget. This is the one. But, our WG did not discuss it 
    for long months. Thus, the chairs formally asked the WG for consensus to 
    drop these documents from our list of "to-do" things.  The people in the 
    room agreed to the dropping. The final question will be posed again on the 
    mailing list.
    8 ITU issue
    Hiroshi Tamura, who attended ITU-T SG16 meeting held in October 2002, 
    reported the meeting. ITU-T accepted the amendment 3 to T.37, 
    reflecting the split of "image/tiff" for Profile S and F and 
    "image/tiff-fx" for Profile J, C, L and M, regarding MIME types.  See the 
    It was approved for Consent. The formal approvement of the amendment will 
    occur "as Recommendation" when their Last Call expires on November 28th.  
    For the time being, there were no comments during the Last Call.
    9 Draft Standard Consideration
    9.1 TIFF-FX (draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-11.txt)
    Claudio Allocchio 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. Larry commented that the appeal was rather to the 
    decision of the chairs for the advancement of the document to Draft 
    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 had been decided that a single image/tiff MIME type 
    was inappropriate, and thus we should correct this error, 
    registering two separate type.  This should also 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 
    At the meeting in Minneapolis, Larry had 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 had 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.
    After that, Robert Buckley presented (see slides) a compendium summary 
    driven out from the 2 available interop tests performed. At first, He 
    addressed briefly some quotation of RFC 2026. He reported that the 
    interoperability results are based on testing between at least 2 
    independent implementations and it meets the requirement of Draft 
    Also, He presented the tables which show the support of features for each 
    Profiles in the original testings. It reveals 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.
    Larry Masinter then presented (see his slides) the objections which he is 
    raising about the latest report. He mainly claimed as follows:
    * It was done for wrong document (RFC 2301), not I-D (tiff-fx-11).
    * The latest report doesn't show interoperability.
    * Implementations are not independent (same company or same source).
    * Implementations not independent "replaceable components"
    * No evidence of IPR licensing
    * Many features have insufficient implementations listed.
    * Proposal for interoperability
    Claudio reported that what's presented in Larry's slides reflect what's in 
    the submitted complaint. During the presentation there were 
    objections by some people, about some points. Larry commented the 
    changes between two documents, for example, addition of 
    GlobalParametersIFD for profile F, but Ned found no evidence of such an 
    addition and objected.
    Although Larry showed disagreement in his presentation, Claudio 
    commented that 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.
    Larry also said that the files used are not available, to see what was 
    actually tested. James Rafferty reminded that the tiff-fx files for all the 
    profiles are available at the ITU repository.
    Regarding the independency, it is commented that the reports are enough for 
    us to trust the declaration of the participants in the interop tests, 
    where they report independent implementations, although Larry already 
    objected in his presentation. Regarding some issues raised by Larry 
    Masinter, there were no formal response during our meeting here.
    Hiroshi Tamura summarized the latest CIAJ report (see the slides).  He 
    claims that the two reports meet the requirement of Draft Standard, 
    although there are two remaining issues. They are addition of CIAJ 
    information to the table which Robert made and the license 
    validation. He also said that one statement was just submitted to IETF a few 
    days ago and now are trying to collect the others.
    Ned Freed, Area Director, said that it is necessary to combine the two 
    reports and to submit again. He also reminded that the current tiff-fx 
    specification is not YET on the IESG table, thus we are still 
    considering updates to it, especially after we agreed some features 
    should be removed.
    As final point, Claudio suggested that the WG chairs prepare an 
    additional accompanying document for the interop document set, 
    including the tables of supported and test features etc. The WG 
    supported the proposal.  Back again on the ML.
    After the meeting, Ned then presented the road-map to progress the work in 
    our ML and the WG agreed on it.
    9.2 RFC 3250 ("image/tiff-fx")
    The publication of "image/tiff-fx" and its companion update of 
    "image/tiff" registration RFCs was done. It was noted that 
    "image/tiff" is now a Proposed Standard (used to be a BCP) as the IESG 
    strongly suggested to put it on standard track during its revision.
    10 SMTP Service Extension for Content Negotiation
    Dave Crocker, one of the editors of the I-D, presented a different 
    approach which could respond to the objections raised last summer on the 
    mailing list.  There are mainly two issues, which are about the relay and 
    At the meeting, the relay issue was mentioned. He presented how to 
    include CONNEG authorization and CONNEG query in relay case. (See the 
    slide.)  There was quite some discussion in order to clarify the 
    presented solution, which are now again summarized in his e-mail.
    The WG agreed to his idea as rough consensus. The confirmation is asked 
    again on our ML. Dave will submit promptly the updated I-D.
    11 Closing
    FAX WG handed over to VPIM, after running about 45 minutes late.


    VPIM General
    TIFF-FX implementation report by CIAJ
    CONNEG SMTP-based Content Transform Authorization
    TIFF-FX Interop Testing
    Problems with tiff-fx-11 Interoperability Report Proposal for Next Steps
    IFAX Service of ENUM
    ITU-T T.37 Issues