headers
Hiroshi Tamura | 3 Oct 2001 00:53
Picon

option 5 for TIFF-FX


Folks,

I'm very sorry for my slow action.
I have been very busy these days. I hope you understand my situation.
This month, I can find more time for our group. But, my response
may be slow. Thanks for your patience.

I do not follow every mails in September, but, anyway,
we have to decide for TIFF-FX.

As you already know, there are lots for favors for option 5.
Therefore, the conlusion is "option 5"

  5. Full TIFF-FX with 2 Content-types - retain the currently defined
  TIFF-FX draft without modification of the encoding set and use two
  MIME content-types within the SINGLE specification. It restricts
  the use of the existing image/tiff MIME type and .tif (or .tiff)
  file name extensions to profiles S and F, and assign a new MIME type and
  file name extension for the profiles J, C, L, and M (perhaps image/tifx and
  .tfx (or .tifx)). It's a variant of options 1 and 4.

We know there are pros and cons for option 5.
I hope everyone accept it. Also I would like everyone to help it go forward.

But, as already indicated, it might take more time to complete all work.
We need the schedule.

I think TIFF-FX editors and the people who support it should provide
somthing at first. Please do it.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Claudio Allocchio | 3 Oct 2001 11:05
Picon

Re: option 5 for TIFF-FX


> I'm very sorry for my slow action.

Yes, we both had a very busy period.

> As you already know, there are lots for favors for option 5.
> Therefore, the conlusion is "option 5"

I'm currently making a summary of the list reactions, and apparently the 
consensus is in fact on the following:

>   5. Full TIFF-FX with 2 Content-types - retain the currently defined
>   TIFF-FX draft without modification of the encoding set and use two
>   MIME content-types within the SINGLE specification. It restricts
>   the use of the existing image/tiff MIME type and .tif (or .tiff)
>   file name extensions to profiles S and F, and assign a new MIME type and
>   file name extension for the profiles J, C, L, and M (perhaps image/tifx and
>   .tfx (or .tifx)). It's a variant of options 1 and 4.

Thus, I can issue the classical sentence:

  Speak now, or keep quiet forever!

regards,
Claudio Allocchio
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
John C Klensin | 3 Oct 2001 13:09

Re: TIFF use within ITU standards / Out of scope


Scott,

I note only that this note is inconsistent with your previous
discussions with us on this topic in at least two respects:

(i) When the issue of the ITU documents has been raised with
you, you have indicated that you did not see any license
violation there.

(ii) When asked about Adobe policies and relationships, you have
repeated informed us that your opinions and statements are
informal, and do not represent or commit Adobe and its policies.
This note certainly reads like an Adobe policy statement.

I trust that the concern here is clear: independent of any
ambiguities in where we stand today, there is clear consensus
among almost everyone who has participated in, or otherwise been
significantly involved with, the Working Group that the features
to which Adobe now takes exception were incorporated based on a
good-faith understanding of suggestions and allocations made by
an Adobe participant and officer.  Whatever decisions are made
going forward --by either the IETF or the ITU-- should be based
on a clear and consistent statement of Adobe's position, one
that unambiguously represents a corporate position.

regards,
   John C Klensin
   Chair, IAB
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Dave Crocker | 3 Oct 2001 16:17

Re: TIFF use within ITU standards / Out of scope


At 08:53 PM 10/2/2001, Scott Foshee wrote:
>  Unfortunately, I must inform you that TIFF FX, as defined by the IETF in 
> RFC 2301 and in ITU T.37, is outside the scope of the license grant 
> provided both to the ITU and the IETF in the fall of 1997.

Scott,

Please clarify the details of the "violation", given:

         <http://www.imc.org/ietf-fax/mail-archive/msg04004.html>

in which there is a specific response to your specific claims.

It is odd that you have not yet responded to that note, given that Adobe 
should desire a clear, public understanding of the problem.

d/

----------
Dave Crocker  <mailto:dcrocker <at> brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.273.6464
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
McDonald, Ira | 4 Oct 2001 01:49
Picon

RE: option 5 for TIFF-FX


Hi,

I agree with option 5 below.

Cheers,
- Ira McDonald
  High North Inc

-----Original Message-----
From: Claudio Allocchio [mailto:Claudio.Allocchio <at> garr.it]
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 5:06 AM
To: Hiroshi Tamura
Cc: ietf-fax <at> imc.org
Subject: Re: option 5 for TIFF-FX

> I'm very sorry for my slow action.

Yes, we both had a very busy period.

> As you already know, there are lots for favors for option 5.
> Therefore, the conlusion is "option 5"

I'm currently making a summary of the list reactions, and apparently the 
consensus is in fact on the following:

>   5. Full TIFF-FX with 2 Content-types - retain the currently defined
>   TIFF-FX draft without modification of the encoding set and use two
>   MIME content-types within the SINGLE specification. It restricts
>   the use of the existing image/tiff MIME type and .tif (or .tiff)
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Hiroshi Tamura | 10 Oct 2001 12:06
Picon

Re: option 5 for TIFF-FX


Folks,

> As you already know, there are lots for favors for option 5.
> Therefore, the conlusion is "option 5"

<snip>

> I think TIFF-FX editors and the people who support it should provide
> somthing at first. Please do it.

No mails so far. I comment it.

At first, we need new two or more I-Ds.
- Revised tiff-fx document
- New or Revised registration document for image/tiff or/and
new MIME type.
At least, those documents should be available prior to December IETF meeting.
The sooner, the better.

Next, implementation tests.
According to the I-Ds or revised I-Ds after getting some consensus
at the meeting or in our ML, the tests should be done.
New MIME type tests must be included.
It may be better to include the test for Profile S and F
with the use of image/tiff.
At the earliest, they will be done in January or February, I think.

After that, the final I-Ds will be availble.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Claudio Allocchio | 10 Oct 2001 20:30
Picon

please conplete the proposed WG meeting request


In the other message I just sent you my proposed request for our St. Lake 
meeting.

Please, comment it and complete (essentially also the other WG conflict 
requests), retrnin it to me ASAP.

regards,

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claudio Allocchio             G   A   R   R          Claudio.Allocchio <at> garr.it
                        Project Technical Officer
tel: +39 040 3758523      Italian Academic and       G=Claudio; S=Allocchio;
fax: +39 040 3758565        Research Network         P=garr; A=garr; C=it;

     PGP Key: http://security.fi.infn.it/cgi-bin/spgpk.pl?KeyId=0C5C2A09
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Claudio Allocchio | 10 Oct 2001 20:28
Picon

Fwd: 52nd IETF WG/BOF Scheduling (fwd)


IETF fax WG request

>   a. Working Group or BOF full name with acronym in brackets:

Internet FAX WG (fax)

>   b. AREA under which Working Group or BOF appears:

Application

>   c. CONFLICTS you wish to avoid, please be as specific as possible:

VPIM, IPP, ...

>   d. Expected Attendance

30

>   e. Special requests (i.e. multicast):

none

>   f. Number of slots:

1

>   g. Length of slot:
>    - 2 1/2 hours
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
McIntyre, Lloyd | 10 Oct 2001 23:19
Picon

RE: option 5 for TIFF-FX


Tamura-san,
In line with your request and outline I have prepared a proposed plan,
please see below.

Lloyd

Option 5 Proposed Plan

  Draft DELIVERABLES
The following three specifications should be delivered to address the MIME
sub-type issue:
1) draft-ietf-fax-tiff-regbis-03
   revisions to existing draft draft-ietf-fax-tiff-regbis-02
2) draft-ietf-fax-tiffx-reg-00
   a new draft
3) draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-10
   revisions to existing draft draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-09

Rational for these deliverables are driven by the current image/tiff MIME
sub-type definition, see appendix below, and the recent WG consensus to 
a) retain the current single TIFF-FX specification,
b) limit the image/tiff MIME sub-type definition and .tif (.tiff) file
extension to TIFF 6.0 and the TIFF-FX profiles that are renderable by the
current viewer base (Profiles S and F),
c) define a new MIME sub-type and file extension (e.g. image/tiffx and .tfx
respectively) to refer to other TIFF-FX profiles.  

  TIMELINES
The progression timeline is as follows:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 501 comments |
headers
Hiroshi Tamura | 12 Oct 2001 13:43
Picon

Re: New version of timely delivery draft


Graham,

Excuse me for very late comment.

> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-fax-timely-delivery-04.txt

I checked roughly.
Some status codes changes to 4.X.X from 5.X.X. They are reasonable, I think.

> This is not the last-call version we discussed in London, but I think it's 
> very close.  To finalize the draft we need to coordinate with the next 
> version of Greg Vaudreuil's extended SMTP status codes draft, as there is 
> one status code that I'm waiting on him to specify.  The other new status 
> codes that had been proposed have been eliminated through refactoring the 
> concepts of final receipt of a message -- overall, a slight simplification.

Yes. Before completing, it seems that new version of
draft-vaudreuil-1983ext-00.txt needs to be fixed at first.

I hope the next version of timely-delivery is published
before December meeting.

--
Hiroshi Tamura, Ricoh Company, LTD.
E-mail: tamura <at> toda.ricoh.co.jp
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane