Hiroshi Tamura | 1 Mar 2002 10:36
Picon

Re: WG Last call for draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-regbis-04.txt [Result]


Folks,

This is the notice of the result of WG Last Call
for the following I-D.

> This is the WG Last call notice for draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-regbis-04.txt.
> 
> According to the SLC meeting results,
> 
> >Mid January 2002:
> >
> >- issue the WG last call for image/tiff registration as BCP
> 
> I should have done earlier. Sorry for my slow action.
> 
> Anyway,
> The WG Last Call period is 2 weeks. It closes on February 28.
> If you have "last comments", please send them to our ML by that time.

There were no comments during the period.
Therefore, We can request IESG consideration.
Claudio and I do it, sooner or later.

Thank you for your support.

--
Hiroshi Tamura, Co-chair of IETF-FAX WG
E-mail: tamura <at> toda.ricoh.co.jp

(Continue reading)

McIntyre, Lloyd | 1 Mar 2002 19:28
Picon

RE: WG Last call for draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-regbis-04.txt [Result ]


Tamura-san,
I believe your announcement should have state 
             draft-ietf-fax-tiff-regbis-04.txt
rather than
             draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-regbis-04.txt.

Lloyd

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hiroshi Tamura [mailto:tamura <at> toda.ricoh.co.jp]
> Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 1:36 AM
> To: ietf-fax <at> imc.org
> Subject: Re: WG Last call for draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-regbis-04.txt
> [Result]
> 
> 
> 
> Folks,
> 
> This is the notice of the result of WG Last Call
> for the following I-D.
> 
> > This is the WG Last call notice for 
> draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-regbis-04.txt.
> > 
> > According to the SLC meeting results,
> > 
> > >Mid January 2002:
> > >
(Continue reading)

Dave Crocker | 1 Mar 2002 19:42

Re: [VPIM] ID-ACTIONs on UM

At 11:33 AM 2/26/2002 -0500, Glenn Parsons wrote:

These drafts discuss some general unified messaging (UM) client issues that I think would be worth discussing at both the FAX and VPIM WGs.

After some discussion, I suggest we need to decide between the following:
a) create a new BOF/WG to work on UM
b) recharter VPIM and/or FAX to work on this
c) close and combine VPIM and FAX into a new UM WG to work on this and remaining VPIM/FAX topics

It is clear that the VPIM and Fax working groups have been pursuing some topics that are more generally than the immediate scope of voice or fax messaging.  Consequently, some set of adjustments probably should be made.

However their is a considerable danger in making such changes, namely that the new/integrated effort might have a scope that is not sufficiently clear and/or is too broad.

Therefore I would strongly suggest that discussion about a change NOT be based a general discussion but, rather, on a specific proposal in the form of a draft charter.

If we can agree on charter language that specifies a clear, concise and useful scope of work, then making the change will be obviously correct.

d/

ps.  I would offer draft text but do not feel that I know enough about the work that is being proposed.

----------
Dave Crocker  <mailto:dcrocker <at> brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253;  (new)fax +1.408.850.1850
Vaudreuil, Greg M (Greg | 3 Mar 2002 04:47
Picon
Favicon

RE: [VPIM] ID-ACTIONs on UM

I would like to see more time at the IETF to discuss the launch of this effort.  I suggest we find 1/2 day or so for a "rolling bar bof" to organize potential topics in advance of the formal voice and fax WG meetings.  One output could be a strawman charter for a new group.
 
I am particularly interested in a working group specifically chartered to augment, profile, or otherwise create standards that would make it possible to build a VOICEMAIL telephone user interface that can communicate with a conforming message store, message submission server, and directory server. The suported applications would be telephone answering (play greeting, take message) and message retreival.  In my mind, I envison work on IMAP, SMTP, and an LDAP schema to replicate the current industry-standard functionality.
 
I am supportive of broading this effort to include telephone user interface applications to include common unified messaging elements such as the ability to distinguish between messages of different contexts for the purposes of sorting, foldering, and notification.
 
If the SNAP work is not completed by then, I would expect that work would also fit within the charter of this group.
 
What I am not interested in is a general-porpose "unified messaging" working group focused on the many other problems in this evolving application space.  That said, I believe the extensions we will require for telephone user interface usage would be generally useful.  I offer this restriction in the spirit of a narrow focus that has potential to be sucessfully addressed.
 
Greg V.
 

 -----Original Message-----
From: Dave Crocker [mailto:dcrocker <at> brandenburg.com]
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 12:43 PM
To: Glenn Parsons
Cc: ietf-fax <at> imc.org; IETF VPIM List; um <at> snowshore.com
Subject: Re: [VPIM] ID-ACTIONs on UM

At 11:33 AM 2/26/2002 -0500, Glenn Parsons wrote:
These drafts discuss some general unified messaging (UM) client issues that I think would be worth discussing at both the FAX and VPIM WGs.

After some discussion, I suggest we need to decide between the following:
a) create a new BOF/WG to work on UM
b) recharter VPIM and/or FAX to work on this
c) close and combine VPIM and FAX into a new UM WG to work on this and remaining VPIM/FAX topics

It is clear that the VPIM and Fax working groups have been pursuing some topics that are more generally than the immediate scope of voice or fax messaging.  Consequently, some set of adjustments probably should be made.

However their is a considerable danger in making such changes, namely that the new/integrated effort might have a scope that is not sufficiently clear and/or is too broad.

Therefore I would strongly suggest that discussion about a change NOT be based a general discussion but, rather, on a specific proposal in the form of a draft charter.

If we can agree on charter language that specifies a clear, concise and useful scope of work, then making the change will be obviously correct.

d/

ps.  I would offer draft text but do not feel that I know enough about the work that is being proposed.

----------
Dave Crocker  <mailto:dcrocker <at> brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253;  (new)fax +1.408.850.1850
Hiroshi Tamura | 3 Mar 2002 23:35
Picon

RE: WG Last call for draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-regbis-04.txt [Result ]


> I believe your announcement should have state 
>              draft-ietf-fax-tiff-regbis-04.txt
> rather than
>              draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-regbis-04.txt.

Yes. Sorry.

> > > >- issue the WG last call for image/tiff registration as BCP

> > There were no comments during the period.
> > Therefore, We can request IESG consideration.
> > Claudio and I do it, sooner or later.

Anyway, the WG LC finished.

--
Hiroshi Tamura, Co-chair of IETF-FAX WG
E-mail: tamura <at> toda.ricoh.co.jp

Hiroshi Tamura | 4 Mar 2002 09:59
Picon

Request for IESG Consideration for two I-Ds


Dear Ned,
Dear Patrik,
Dear IETF secretary,

I am Hiroshi Tamura, a co-chair of IETF FAX WG.
Thanks for your usual support for our WG.

The Internet Fax Working Group requests IESG approval for publication of 
the following two I-Ds, with the specified status. 

.....................................................................
1

Timely Completion for Internet Messaging Services
<draft-ietf-fax-timely-delivery-05.txt>

Status: Proposed Standard

Summary:

  This specification provides a way to request timely completion for
  Internet mail delivery, for services such as facsimile and voice
  messaging.  Traditional Internet mail uses a _postal_ mail model,
  with normal delivery having an indeterminate gap between delivery
  into a mailbox and processing by the recipient.  Timely completion
  adds a timelines service feature and extends delivery processing
  all the way to the recipient.  This specification provides a
  deterministic service quality response, while preserving most of
  the traditional roles and responsibilities of the agents involved
  in email transfers.

  It is essentially a profile of the Delivery Service Notification
  (DSN) and DELIVERBY extensions for ESMTP, along with a new TIMELY
  option to DELIVERBY with a new deterministic service quality
  response.

Working Group Last Call Result:

The I-D was submitted for IETF-FAX WG Last Call on November 22 last year.
During WG LC period, there were no comments.
It sucessfully finished on December 6. So far, the editors and the
wg chairs were confirming a few things. Excuse me for my slow action.

.....................................................................
2

Tag Image File Format (TIFF) - image/tiff 
  MIME Sub-type Registration 
<draft-ietf-fax-tiff-regbis-04.txt>

Status: Best Current Practice

Summary:

   This document describes the registration of the MIME sub-type 
   image/tiff.  The baseline encoding is defined by [TIFF].  This 
   document refines an earlier sub-type registration in RFC 1528 
   [TPC.INT]. 

   This document obsoletes RFC2302. 

Working Group Last Call Result:

The I-D reflects London and SLC meeting results, regarding TIFF-FX issue.
It only describes image/tiff.
It was submitted for IETF-FAX WG Last Call on February 14.
During WG LC period, there were no comments.
It sucessfully finished on February 28.

.....................................................................

Best Regards,
--
Hiroshi Tamura
IETF FAX WG co-chair

Graham Klyne | 4 Mar 2002 12:08

Re: Request for IESG Consideration for two I-Ds


I think it's worth highlighting that this has a small normative dependency on:

   draft-vaudreuil-1983ext-xx.txt

(it uses a new status code listed there) and it might make sense to 
consider both at the same time.

#g
--

BTW, I don't expect to be at the forthcoming IETF meeting.

At 05:59 PM 3/4/02 +0900, Hiroshi Tamura wrote:
>Timely Completion for Internet Messaging Services
><draft-ietf-fax-timely-delivery-05.txt>
>
>Status: Proposed Standard
>
>Summary:
>
>   This specification provides a way to request timely completion for
>   Internet mail delivery, for services such as facsimile and voice
>   messaging.  Traditional Internet mail uses a _postal_ mail model,
>   with normal delivery having an indeterminate gap between delivery
>   into a mailbox and processing by the recipient.  Timely completion
>   adds a timelines service feature and extends delivery processing
>   all the way to the recipient.  This specification provides a
>   deterministic service quality response, while preserving most of
>   the traditional roles and responsibilities of the agents involved
>   in email transfers.
>
>   It is essentially a profile of the Delivery Service Notification
>   (DSN) and DELIVERBY extensions for ESMTP, along with a new TIMELY
>   option to DELIVERBY with a new deterministic service quality
>   response.
>
>Working Group Last Call Result:
>
>The I-D was submitted for IETF-FAX WG Last Call on November 22 last year.
>During WG LC period, there were no comments.
>It sucessfully finished on December 6. So far, the editors and the
>wg chairs were confirming a few things. Excuse me for my slow action.

------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne                    Baltimore Technologies
Strategic Research              Content Security Group
<Graham.Klyne <at> Baltimore.com>    <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
                                 <http://www.baltimore.com>
------------------------------------------------------------

Hiroshi Tamura | 4 Mar 2002 12:29
Picon

Re: Request for IESG Consideration for two I-Ds


Ned,
Patrik,
IETF secretary,

As Graham commented, I request as follows. Excuse me for it.

....................................................
1

Timely Completion for Internet Messaging Services
<draft-ietf-fax-timely-delivery-05.txt>

Status: Proposed Standard

Summary:

This specification provides a way to request timely completion for
Internet mail delivery, for services such as facsimile and voice
messaging.  Traditional Internet mail uses a _postal_ mail model,
with normal delivery having an indeterminate gap between delivery
into a mailbox and processing by the recipient.  Timely completion
adds a timelines service feature and extends delivery processing
all the way to the recipient.  This specification provides a
deterministic service quality response, while preserving most of
the traditional roles and responsibilities of the agents involved
in email transfers.

It is essentially a profile of the Delivery Service Notification
(DSN) and DELIVERBY extensions for ESMTP, along with a new TIMELY
option to DELIVERBY with a new deterministic service quality
response.

Working Group Last Call Result:

The I-D was submitted for IETF-FAX WG Last Call on November 22 last year.
During WG LC period, there were no comments.
It sucessfully finished on December 6. So far, the editors and the
wg chairs were confirming a few things. The I-D has a small normative
dependency on draft-vaudreuil-1983ext-xx.txt. It should be considered
at the same time. Excuse me for my slow action.

......................

Regarding the second one (draft-ietf-fax-tiff-regbis-04.txt),
the original request is valid.

.................

Graham,

Thanks for your addition.

Best Regards,
--
Hiroshi Tamura
IETF FAX WG co-chair

Hiroshi Tamura | 4 Mar 2002 23:59
Picon

Fax WG - draft Agenda at Minneapolis


Folks,

Attached is the draft Agenda at Minneapolis meeting.
I allocate 25 minutes for UM, because of itu nature.

If you have comments, please say by March 7.

Regards,
--
Hiroshi Tamura, Co-chair of IETF-FAX WG
E-mail: tamura <at> toda.ricoh.co.jp

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

1. Agenda bashing                                   3     3

2 The I-Ds that are in RFC editor's queue           3     6
- draft-ietf-fax-implementers-guide-08.txt
- draft-ietf-fax-content-negotiation-05.txt

3 The I-Ds that IESG is reviewing                   10    16
(Before IETF Last Call)
- draft-ietf-fax-gateway-options-04.txt
- draft-ietf-fax-gateway-protocol-06.txt
- draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-reg-01.txt 
- draft-ietf-fax-esmtp-conneg-01.txt
- draft-ietf-fax-tiff-regbis-04.txt
- draft-ietf-fax-timely-delivery-05.txt

[We already requested IETF Last Call for the above I-Ds.
The confirmation of the status by AD - Mr. N. Freed is necessary.]

4 Targeted for Draft Standard
4.1 Service                                         4     20
- draft-ietf-fax-service-v2-05.txt

[Only dependancy issues: TIFF-FX, DSN.
The status of DSN should be necessary.]

4.2 TIFF-FX                                         30    50
- draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-11.txt

[The plan for implementation test about image/tiff-fx
should be indicated. AD should advise whether the recycling
is necessary or not. Also, the comment by IAB - Mr. J. Klensin
is preferable, regarding the IPR issue.]

5 On-Going Internet-Drafts
5.1 FFPIM                                           5     55
- draft-ietf-fax-ffpim-01.txt

[Just editing for final version is necessary.]

5.2 TIFF-FX extension issue                         10    65
- draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-extension-1-01.txt
- darft-mcintyre-feature-schema-extension1-00.txt

[Temporary suspended until TIFF-FX issue is resolved.]

6 Addressing                                        10    75
- draft-allocchio-gstn-02.txt

7 Use of ENUM RFC2916 by Internet Fax               10    85

[From ENUM WG.]

8 UM (Unified Messaging)                            25    110
- draft-burger-um-reqts-00.txt
- draft-vaudreuil-um-issues-00.txt

[Requested by VPIM WG. The important issue for FAX WG
in the near future.]

9 ITU-T                                             5     115

[We do not have official communication from ITU-T meeting
held in February. The result about T.37 issue is introduced.]

10 Confirmation of milestone                        5     120
- TIFF-FX
- FFPIM
- GSTN
- TIFF-FX extension

[Please indicate it.]

Graham Klyne | 5 Mar 2002 20:21

Feature expression parsing and matching software


Folks,

I've updated the media feature set parsing and matching software I wrote 
some time ago, to handle auxilliary predicates (without parameters).  The 
software (Java source) is available linked from: 
http://www.ninebynine.org/Software/Intro.html

#g
--

------------
Graham Klyne
(GK <at> ACM.ORG)


Gmane