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:

       http://www.imc.org/ietf-fax -- Additional FAX WG Page
NOTE: This charter is a snapshot of the 56th IETF Meeting in San Francisco, California USA. It may now be out-of-date.

Last Modified: 2003-01-20

Claudio Allocchio <Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it>
Hiroshi Tamura <tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp>
Applications Area Director(s):
Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
Patrik Faltstrom <paf@cisco.com>
Applications Area Advisor:
Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
Mailing Lists:
General Discussion: ietf-fax@imc.org
To Subscribe: ietf-fax-request@imc.org
In Body: subscribe
Archive: http://www.imc.org/ietf-fax/
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 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
  • - draft-ietf-fax-service-v2-05.txt
  • - draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-12.txt
  • - draft-ietf-fax-timely-delivery-05.txt
  • - draft-ietf-fax-gateway-protocol-08.txt
  • - draft-ietf-fax-gateway-options-05.txt
  • - draft-ietf-fax-esmtp-conneg-06.txt
  • - draft-ietf-fax-faxservice-enum-00.txt
  • Request For Comments:
    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

    Current Meeting Report

    Internet Fax meeting:  TUESDAY, March 19 at 1300-1410
    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 
    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 
    6 IFAX service of ENUM
    - draft-ietf-fax-faxservice-enum-00.txt (for Proposed Standard)
    The updated version is at:
    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 
    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 
    (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 
    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".


    Changes from draft-03
    IFAX Service of ENUM
    TIFF-FX Status & Plan
    Comments of TIFF-FX