FYI,
- Ira McDonald (consulting architect at Sharp and Xerox)
High North Inc
-----Original Message-----
From: Hiroshi Tamura [mailto:tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp]
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 3:26 PM
To: ietf-fax@imc.org
Subject: Re: Fax WG minutes - 11-Dec-2000
Folks,
I'm back at my office.(I left San Diego on Wednesday).
Here is the summary of FAX WG at San Diego.
Claudio,
thank you so much for your *detailed* summary.
I will prepare the first draft meeting minutes based on this summary.
Thanks to this summary, I can do within this year.
Claudio, thanks again.
Regards,
-- Hiroshi Tamura, Co-chair of IETF-FAX WG E-mail: tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jpFrom: Claudio Allocchio <Claudio.Allocchio@elettra.trieste.it> Subject: Re: Fax WG minutes - 11-Dec-2000 Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 19:53:58 +0100
> > > Here is the brief summary of the ietf-fax WG meeting, monday afternoon. > > The WG examined the status of the current drafts and the ongoing work, in > oder to confirm their situation. > > Currently there are some pending Draft Standard I-D whose work is > finished and underwent WG last call (just minor editorial corrections to > some of them): > > - draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-09.txt > - draft-ietf-fax-tiff-regbis-02.txt > - draft-ietf-fax-minaddr-v2-02.txt > - draft-ietf-fax-faxaddr-v2-02.txt > > they're now in AD queue for IESG processing. No further comments came > from WG. > > We discussed the "service" document revision (also targeted for Draft > Standard) > > - draft-ietf-fax-service-v2-02.txt > > its major current problem is its dependancy on DSN docs status. As > reported, the DSN documents editor is working in these days to produce > the new final Draft Standard docs for DSN in order to proceed. There are > no MDM dependacies in this document. > > On going work on I-Ds: > > Gateway issues: > > - draft-ietf-fax-gateway-protocol-02.txt > - draft-ietf-fax-gateway-options-00.txt > > some clarification were made into the text, splitting the original docs. > Currently there are still some points to clarify in the gateway behaviour > when non delivery notifications are involved. The docs do not > intentioanlly cover the multiple gateway crossing scenario, as it would > be a too complex situation to keep into this schema. > > Implementers guide is ready. Minor clarifications to it. The WG believes > it is very useful, and expecially needed now that products are being > released. > > - draft-ietf-fax-implementers-guide-04.txt > > ITU requested to re-submit an expired I-D: > > - draft-ietf-fax-ffpim-00.txt > > the editor will do it. > > The discussion on timely delivery (as to satisfy a request from ITU) > revealed that there are still some "last hop" considerations to be > clarified before the documents can be finalised: we need to make clear > with ITU which is the scenario, i.e. if the final "MUA" or "gateway" > action is what they intend as final delivery. In such a case, the WG > believes we need much more than this simple definitions, and probably new > protocols between the final MTA and final MUA. > > - draft-ietf-fax-timely-delivery-01.txt > - draft-ietf-fax-content-negotiation-03.txt > > TIFF-FX extensions: the new lates extesions were presented. No further > comments from WG.
> - draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-extension1-00.txt >
> Partial Non Delivery Notification draft (from EMA / VPIM): the WG decided > it is not worth to continue with the specification: document will be dropped. > > - draft-ema-vpim-pndn-02.txt > > The WG than had a presentation of ENUM schema and current drafts, with a > request to define the eventual Resource Records which might be usueful > for internet fax service: the WG agreed it is a viable option. We will > consider making the specification. > > - draft-gallant-enum-ifax-00.txt > > We also had the update on how VPIM WG will use the EMUN specification, > chich is a possible solution also for i-fax > > - draft-ietf-vpim-routing-01.txt > > ITU Issues: the next ITU meeting is in June 2001. We received the formal > requests, and we will finalise the answer on the mailing list and in the > next meeting in March. > > We also revised the milestones: dates were confiurmed or modified > according to the editors comments. On document was dropped as considered > now irrilevant:Nov 2000 Final draft of Routing Considerations > Apprently we are on schedule with the other milestones (see WG minutes) > > We ended the meeting a bit late.. but the WG has a large amount of > documents to deal with.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Dec 14 2000 - 20:08:42 EST