Subject: IETF-48 Fax WG minutes (short draft notes)

From: Claudio Allocchio <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 01:51:40 +0100

Hallo,
thanks to Graham which is always very quick, here are our summary notes 
for this morning meeting.

Moer detailed minutes will then follow.

Please submit since now changes, and corrections/additions to this short 
list.

 regards,

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claudio Allocchio             G   A   R   R          [email-masked]
                        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

IETF-48 Fax WG minutes

Claudio Allocchio and Hiroshi Tamura briefly introduce the meeting, and 
welcome participants in Pittsburgh.

1. TIFF-FX to Draft Standard

Lloyd McIntyre presents changes to TIFF-FX specification (-07) -- these are 
purely editorial.  With these changes, document will go forward in IESG 
without new last call. THe Document is currently in AD review status.

2. Simple mode service document to Draft Standard status

Toyoda-san presents revisions [see slides] -- all minor changes

Awaiting three normative references moving to Draft:  File format, address 
format, format extensions for DSN reports.

3. Minimal addressing format document

Claudio presents revisions -- minor clarification and a correction to ABNF.

4. Fax addressing format document

Claudio presents.  Clarification of sub-address format -- digits only, no 
'#', no spaces, no multiple sub-addresses.

Include IANA registration procedures (copied from RFC 2846 -- full address 
document).

5. RFC 2304 interworking report from Japan

Toyoda-san presents.

Attendees: TOYOCOM and MGCS.  [See side for test configuration]

See slides for test cases.

All items from "RFC 2304 interworking configuration matrix" (per FaxConnect 
2) were satisfied -- see FaxConnect 2 web site. (Paul Hoffman, do you 
have the exact URL, please?)

As such a "formal" interoperability report will be submitted to IESG and 
the last call to Draft Standard will be issued.

6. Internet fax gateway considerations

??? (TOYOCOM) presents.

(This presentaton was supported by some slides with excellent diagrams 
covering the issues discussed.)

Internet fax gateway has two functions: onramp and offramp [See slides]

+ Addressing issues  [see slides]

Question about about provision for separate identification of country code, 
to allow receiving system to isolate local dialling part.

The standard defines only fully qualified numbers with leading '+', so 
system should know to expect a country code.  Other numbers do not have a 
defined meaning, and is not appropriate to try and specify behaviour in 
these cases.

Should a receiver be expected to know its own local dialing codes?  Beyond 
scope of this specification, but implementations will need to take account 
of these issues.

Suggested text: "Gateway MUST process the mailbox string and convert it to 
a local dial string according to the local dialing rules".

+ File format conversion issues [see slides]

+ Drop duplications [see slides]

Same message to multiple mailboxes at the same domain.

There is some confusion about exactly what this means.

 From the draft:

    An offramp gateway MUST drop the duplicate mail by confirming whether
    Message-ID is the same as old one.
    This is to avoid the duplication of the transmission to same facsimile
    device over GSTN.

It is suggested that the MUST be softened to MAY or SHOULD.  Message IDs 
cannot be guaranteed to be unique (e-mail specs notwithstanding).  Also, 
note that mailing lists can change text without changing message-ID.

Question:  what is scope of duplicate detection (period of time).

+ Automatic retransmission [see slide]

Is there provision in the spec to link any retransmissions to the original?

Note that retransmissions must be constrained to local legal operating 
requirements?

Add a note that retransmission issues may be particularly sensitive, and 
must be handled with care, because the sending user will not generally be 
present to deal with any transmission failures?

+ Error behaviour [see slide]

Need to distinguish between T.30/fax "soft" errors (for which 
retransmission may be appropriate -- e.g. line busy) and "hard errors" (for 
which retransmission is not appropriate -- e.g. paper out).

+ Onramp gateway

Note: current version is based strictly on simple mode (c.f. section 4.1)

We need to decide (on the list) whether we wish to be restricted to this 
scope, or whether to address extended/full mode issues from the start.

+ Addressing fax-to-fax

 From the draft:

    An onramp gateway MUST have the function that onramp gateway analyze
    destination address from address data sent by facsimile device over GSTN

Direct and indirect addressing are discussed.  Direct uses given number 
directly as mailbox name, and uses prefix to select destination 
domain.  Indirect may use number mapping table to select destination 
mailbox and domain.

+ Next version -01

Not distributed at time of meeting, but has been prepared.  See slides for 
summary of changes.

7. Implementer's guide

Vivian Cancio presents.  (See slides)

Addresses simple and extended modes.

Question:  is there a reasonable mechanism for a sender to determine 
whether or not an MDN/DSN has been sent *after* the TIFF image has been 
processed?  This information may be useful to automatic status logging systems.

8. FFPIM

GK presents.

Timely delivery draft will be moved forward now DELIVERBY is an RFC.

There are a number of technical issues in the negotiation draft that really 
should have some group discussion on the list.  They are highlighted in the 
draft -- please review and comment.

For now:

Note that there may be security concerns (message tracing) if negotiation 
is allowed with recipients not named by the sender.

The distinction between 'definitive' and 'informative' introduces some 
unintended complexities, and the "sender decides" model for quality 
decisions seems to be adequate.  Don't do this for now.

9. TIFF-FX extensions

Lloyd presents.  See slides.

Slide 27 contains overview of relation of changes to current TIFF-FX profiles.

The enhancements require new tags to be approved by Adobe, for which a 
formal WG request may be required.

10. VPIM/IVM activities

Glen Parsons presents.  See slides.

Concerns expressed about 'content-hint' -- careful discussion needed.

11. ITU interactions

Tamura-san presents.  See slides.

12. Terminal mode

Maeda-san presents.  See slides.

13. Charter review

No objections.

Call to all members to please get draft reviews in quickly.