WEDNESDAY, November 20 at 0900-1045 
============================== 

CHAIRS: 
Claudio Allocchio <Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it> 
Hiroshi Tamura <tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> 


----------------------------------------
----------------------------- 
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

----------------------------------------
-----------------------------

----------------------------------------
-----------------------------
3.1 
draft-ietf-fax-gateway-protocol-08.txt
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 
(draft-toyoda-enum-faxservice-00.txt)

----------------------------------------
-----------------------------
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 
format.

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 
slide.

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 
Standard.

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 
image/tiff-fx.

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 
Standard.

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
(draft-ietf-fax-esmtp-conneg-03.txt)

----------------------------------------
-----------------------------
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 
multi-recipients.

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.