Subject: Communication from ITU Study Group 8 Question 4

From: Herman Silbiger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 09:17:19 -0400

COMMUNICATION

TO:  IETF Fax WG
Approved: At Question level
FOR:  Action
CONTACT: RAPPORTEUR Q.4/8
                     Herman R. Silbiger, [email-masked]
________________
Summary:

The Question 4 Rapporteur’s Group of Study Group 8 met on 12 – 15 June
and reviewed “Communication from IETF Fax Working Group on Current
Activities” and “Implementer's guide for Facsimile Using Internet
Mail”.  We welcomed the participation of IETF Fax WG co-chair  Mr.
Tamura from IETF in presenting the communication from IETF and had a
productive meeting.   We have reviewed the communication and the
Implementer's Guide.  We would like to make the following communication:

1.  Implementer's Guide

It is helpful for T.37 ITU-T standard Implementer's. We request further
information when the draft is completed and assigned RFC number. We will
amend T.37 to refer Implementer's Guide for Facsimile Using Internet
Mail.

2.  We have requested the addition of some features in the communication
in 1999. Some items are not fully responded yet. We would like to
request again as follows:

2.1  In RCC2532, the MDN/DSN request has no means to indicate precisely
to the receiver, that the sender desires to have capabilities returned
with MDN/DSN response.  This situation is difficult for the facsimile
application, since the capabilities of the receiver are required for the
Full Mode sender before transmitting a TIFF-FX file.  Since the existing
capabilities exchange mechanism uses MDN and DSN facilities, further
enhancements to this method are high priority for us.

2.2  The fax processed status information in RCF2530 needs to be
enhanced. We need a facility to enable the total number of pages and
pages in error to be returned to the sender in a MDN to indicate
successful processing.  We need further precision on the fax status
information using DSN and/or MDN.

2.3  Similarly the specification within RFC2298 for the value processed
need to be enhanced. We need further precision to ensure that the
specific MDN response that is generated clearly indicates that the MIME
body part(s) has been successfully processed (i.e. printed or
displayed).

2.4  We request further study and a more complete solution on mechanisms
for capabilities request and indication that can be used to meet  the
Internet fax requirements for capability exchange.

We understand that MDN/DSN capabilities exchange mechanism is under
discussion in IETF.

3.  Terminal Mode

T.37 Terminal Mode which defines a new email header for T.30 signals was
introduced and discussed.  It supports the transfer of image data,
capabilities exchange, and confirmation for store and forward Internet
facsimile terminals having limited memory and small CPU power.  It was
agreed to leave this for further study.

 __________________

---

From: Hiroshi Tamura <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 14:13:36 +0900 (JST)

Folks,

Concerning this issue, I make a short presentation at our meeting.
For Terminal mode, Maeda-san does.

SG8 will be merged into SG16 in October.
Next new SG16(number is not decided) meeting will be held in November.

Any comments are welcome, even AFTER Pittsburgh meeting.
After Pittsburgh meeting, I will prepare a response letter, as usual.
We have enough time to collect comments.

Regards,

--
Hiroshi Tamura, Ricoh Company, LTD.
E-mail: [email-masked]

From: Herman Silbiger <[email-masked]>
Subject: Communication from ITU Study Group 8 Question 4
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 09:17:19 -0400