From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Tue Oct 3 06:13:00 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id GAA05040 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 06:13:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA07712 for ietf-fax-bks; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 02:17:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ricohigw.ricoh.co.jp (ricohigw.ricoh.co.jp [202.32.12.1]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA07707 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 02:17:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from thunder.ricoh.co.jp (thunder [133.139.211.198]) by ricohigw.ricoh.co.jp (8.9.3+3.2W/3.7W) with ESMTP id SAA13746; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 18:21:02 +0900 (JST) Received: from newton.toda.ricoh.co.jp (newton.toda.ricoh.co.jp [133.139.60.10]) by thunder.ricoh.co.jp (8.9.3+3.2W/3.7W) with SMTP id SAA25393; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 18:21:01 +0900 (JST) Received: from localhost (maple.toda.ricoh.co.jp [133.139.60.73]) by newton.toda.ricoh.co.jp (8.6.11+2.4W/3.3W9-1.0S8sun) with ESMTP id SAA09008; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 18:20:55 +0900 To: ietf-fax@imc.org Cc: ned.freed@innosoft.com, paf@cisco.com Subject: Re: IETF-FAX WG Last Call on Addressing I-Ds In-Reply-To: <20000918173616I.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> References: <20000918173616I.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> X-Mailer: Mew version 1.94.2 on Emacs 20.4 / Mule 4.1 (AOI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20001003182345J.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 18:23:45 +0900 (JST) From: Hiroshi Tamura X-Dispatcher: imput version 20000228(IM140) Lines: 25 Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Folks, This is the result of IETF-FAX WG Last Call of the following I-Ds. 1 draft-ietf-fax-minaddr-v2-02.txt (update of RFC 2303) - Minimal GSTN address format in Internet Mail - 2 draft-ietf-fax-faxaddr-v2-02.txt (update of RFC 2304) - Minimal FAX address format in Internet Mail - These were submitted for IETF FAX WG Last CALL on September 18, 2000. During the two-weeks Last Call period, there were no comments. They were already modified for clarification by Pittsburgh meeting and editorially corrected by the Last Call. Therefore, I will submit both documents to the IESG with the interworking report for Draft Standard consideration, within a few days. Thanks to the editor, Claudio and all people who commented them. Regards, -- Hiroshi Tamura IETF FAX WG co-chair From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Tue Oct 3 16:10:58 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id QAA22392 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 16:10:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA27239 for ietf-fax-bks; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 12:29:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hose.pipex.net (hose.mail.pipex.net [158.43.128.58]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA27234 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 12:29:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from GK-VAIO.Dial.pipex.com (userak20.uk.uudial.com [62.188.133.248]) by hose.pipex.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7331C4645; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 20:32:54 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001003172545.00aa5790@pop.dial.pipex.com> X-Sender: maiw03@pop.dial.pipex.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 17:33:32 +0100 To: IETF fax WG From: Graham Klyne Subject: Fax content negotiation Cc: Dave Crocker , iwa@rdl.toshibatec.co.jp In-Reply-To: <39C9AD4D.C04349D@rdl.toshibatec.co.jp> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20000913164541.00b0d2e0@pop.dial.pipex.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Folks, The current working draft (soon to be submitted for publication) for Internet fax content negotiation contains the following note: -- NOTE: A cache control indicator on recipient capabilities has been considered, but is not included in the this specification. (Sometimes, a recipient may want to offer certain capabilities only under certain circumstances, and does not wish them to be remembered for future use; e.g. not wanting to receive colour images for routine communications.) -- Our question for this group is this: is there a compelling immediate desire for a recipient to be able to indicate that certain capabilities offered apply ONLY to the current transaction, and should not be remembered for future use? An extension to allow this would not, I think, be a major addition, but if not required it would represent an unnecessary complexity. Is it useful enough to justify inclusion? #g ------------ Graham Klyne (GK@ACM.ORG) From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Tue Oct 3 17:00:30 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id RAA23210 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 17:00:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA28618 for ietf-fax-bks; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 13:26:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omega.cisco.com (omega.cisco.com [171.69.63.141]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA28614 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 13:26:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by omega.cisco.com (8.8.8-Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA12698; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 13:29:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 13:29:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Dan Wing To: Graham Klyne cc: IETF fax WG , Dave Crocker , iwa@rdl.toshibatec.co.jp Subject: Re: Fax content negotiation In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20001003172545.00aa5790@pop.dial.pipex.com> Message-ID: <0010031327020.8308-100000@omega.cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: While travelling with a laptop that receives Internet faxes via your inbox, you might only have access to a black and white printer. However, while at your office, you might have access to a color printer. If a sender cached the wrong information, you could receive a color fax and be unable to print it (or perhaps even display it), or, if you are located at your office, you might receive a lower fidelity (black and white) fax when the sender (and you) may have preferred a color fax. Likelyhood of the above scenario? I dunno. -Dan Wing On Tue, 3 Oct 2000 17:33 +0100, Graham Klyne wrote: > Folks, > > The current working draft (soon to be submitted for publication) for > Internet fax content negotiation contains the following note: > > -- > NOTE: A cache control indicator on recipient capabilities has been > considered, but is not included in the this specification. (Sometimes, a > recipient may want to offer certain capabilities only under certain > circumstances, and does not wish them to be remembered for future > use; e.g. not wanting to receive colour images for routine communications.) > -- > > Our question for this group is this: is there a compelling immediate > desire for a recipient to be able to indicate that certain capabilities > offered apply ONLY to the current transaction, and should not be remembered > for future use? > > An extension to allow this would not, I think, be a major addition, but if > not required it would represent an unnecessary complexity. Is it useful > enough to justify inclusion? > > #g > ------------ > Graham Klyne > (GK@ACM.ORG) > From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Wed Oct 4 01:59:06 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id BAA06117 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 01:59:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA09667 for ietf-fax-bks; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 22:21:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ricohigw.ricoh.co.jp (ricohigw.ricoh.co.jp [202.32.12.1]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA09662 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 22:21:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from thunder.ricoh.co.jp (thunder [133.139.211.198]) by ricohigw.ricoh.co.jp (8.9.3+3.2W/3.7W) with ESMTP id OAA29242; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 14:18:37 +0900 (JST) Received: from newton.toda.ricoh.co.jp (newton.toda.ricoh.co.jp [133.139.60.10]) by thunder.ricoh.co.jp (8.9.3+3.2W/3.7W) with SMTP id OAA09964; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 14:18:36 +0900 (JST) Received: from localhost (maple.toda.ricoh.co.jp [133.139.60.73]) by newton.toda.ricoh.co.jp (8.6.11+2.4W/3.3W9-1.0S8sun) with ESMTP id OAA16812; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 14:18:31 +0900 To: Vivian.Cancio@pahv.xerox.com Cc: ietf-fax@imc.org Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-fax-implementers-guide-03.txt In-Reply-To: <200009271031.GAA07511@ietf.org> References: <200009271031.GAA07511@ietf.org> X-Mailer: Mew version 1.94.2 on Emacs 20.4 / Mule 4.1 (AOI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20001004142121F.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 14:21:21 +0900 (JST) From: Hiroshi Tamura X-Dispatcher: imput version 20000228(IM140) Lines: 11 Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Question. What do you think we should do for editorial comments parts([[[]]])? Addition or modification is necessary, except for revision history. Regards -- Hiroshi Tamura, Ricoh Company, LTD. E-mail: tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Wed Oct 4 02:03:13 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id CAA10483 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 02:03:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA09706 for ietf-fax-bks; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 22:23:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ricohigw.ricoh.co.jp (ricohigw.ricoh.co.jp [202.32.12.1]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA09701 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 22:23:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from thunder.ricoh.co.jp (thunder [133.139.211.198]) by ricohigw.ricoh.co.jp (8.9.3+3.2W/3.7W) with ESMTP id OAA01524; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 14:27:05 +0900 (JST) Received: from newton.toda.ricoh.co.jp (newton.toda.ricoh.co.jp [133.139.60.10]) by thunder.ricoh.co.jp (8.9.3+3.2W/3.7W) with SMTP id OAA12233; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 14:27:05 +0900 (JST) Received: from localhost (maple.toda.ricoh.co.jp [133.139.60.73]) by newton.toda.ricoh.co.jp (8.6.11+2.4W/3.3W9-1.0S8sun) with ESMTP id OAA16907; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 14:27:00 +0900 To: GK@dial.pipex.com Cc: ietf-fax@imc.org, dcrocker@brandenburg.com, iwa@rdl.toshibatec.co.jp Subject: Re: Fax content negotiation In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20001003172545.00aa5790@pop.dial.pipex.com> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20000913164541.00b0d2e0@pop.dial.pipex.com> <39C9AD4D.C04349D@rdl.toshibatec.co.jp> <4.3.2.7.2.20001003172545.00aa5790@pop.dial.pipex.com> X-Mailer: Mew version 1.94.2 on Emacs 20.4 / Mule 4.1 (AOI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20001004142950G.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 14:29:50 +0900 (JST) From: Hiroshi Tamura X-Dispatcher: imput version 20000228(IM140) Lines: 29 Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > -- > NOTE: A cache control indicator on recipient capabilities has been > considered, but is not included in the this specification. (Sometimes, a > recipient may want to offer certain capabilities only under certain > circumstances, and does not wish them to be remembered for future > use; e.g. not wanting to receive colour images for routine communications.) > -- > > Our question for this group is this: is there a compelling immediate > desire for a recipient to be able to indicate that certain capabilities > offered apply ONLY to the current transaction, and should not be remembered > for future use? It depends. There is a Dan's example. > An extension to allow this would not, I think, be a major addition, but if > not required it would represent an unnecessary complexity. Is it useful > enough to justify inclusion? I cannot say yes or no. How about only indicating there is a cache control indicator, which might handle recipient capabilities? Regards, -- Hiroshi Tamura, Ricoh Company, LTD. E-mail: tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Wed Oct 4 21:40:48 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id VAA06904 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 21:40:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA05697 for ietf-fax-bks; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 17:38:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ricohigw.ricoh.co.jp (ricohigw.ricoh.co.jp [202.32.12.1]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA05693 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 17:38:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from thunder.ricoh.co.jp (thunder [133.139.211.198]) by ricohigw.ricoh.co.jp (8.9.3+3.2W/3.7W) with ESMTP id JAA09828; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 09:40:02 +0900 (JST) Received: from newton.toda.ricoh.co.jp (newton.toda.ricoh.co.jp [133.139.60.10]) by thunder.ricoh.co.jp (8.9.3+3.2W/3.7W) with SMTP id JAA21435; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 09:40:01 +0900 (JST) Received: from localhost (maple.toda.ricoh.co.jp [133.139.60.73]) by newton.toda.ricoh.co.jp (8.6.11+2.4W/3.3W9-1.0S8sun) with ESMTP id JAA23505; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 09:39:57 +0900 To: ietf-fax@imc.org Cc: Claudio.Allocchio@elettra.trieste.it, hsilbiger@ieee.org Subject: IETF-FAX WG: Input to November SG16 meeting X-Mailer: Mew version 1.94.2 on Emacs 20.4 / Mule 4.1 (AOI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; boundary="--Next_Part(Thu_Oct_05_09:42:44_2000_955)--" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20001005094247X.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 09:42:47 +0900 (JST) From: Hiroshi Tamura X-Dispatcher: imput version 20000228(IM140) Lines: 239 Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: ----Next_Part(Thu_Oct_05_09:42:44_2000_955)-- Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Folks, As I suggested in Pittsburgh and the minutes, we have a plan to input a letter and RFCs to November SG16 meeting. (From the information on-going WTSA, it seems that Q4/SG8 has moved to new SG16.) I do not have there are any problems for the input. But, I would like to get the WG's confirmation. 1 Input of RFCs RFC 2879: schema v2 RFC 2880: T30-mapping At first, I would like to say I do not intend to input all revised RFCs that T.37 refers. But these two RFCs are necessary. W.R.T. schema v2, some important feature expressions has changed from RFC 2531. Without them, capability indication cannot be done. W.R.T. T30-mapping, T.37 Appendix III addresses it, but the RFC number is not assigned there. 2 Input of a letter Attached is the draft letter. We have a request from previous Q4/SG8. It includes the response as well as our WG status. Any comments, addition or modification are appreciated. ... If there are any comments, please reply by October 12. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Regards, -- Hiroshi Tamura, Co-chair of IETF-FAX WG ----Next_Part(Thu_Oct_05_09:42:44_2000_955)-- Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="toITU.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit [[[]]] is only for this mail. ---- TITLE: Communication from IETF Fax Working Group on Current Activities and Response on Full Mode Abstract This letter is to notify current activities of IETF Fax Working Group and respond to the request the previous Q4/SG8 made to FAX WG. Introduction IETF FAX Working Group meeting was held at Pittsburgh last August. Your communication letter was inputted to it. The group always appreciates it. 1 Working Group Status 1.1 Request of Draft Standard on Simple mode RFCs There are the following Internet-Drafts(I-Ds) that the WG is now requesting to IESG for Draft Standard consideration. - draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-07.txt (that will obsolete RFC 2301) - draft-ietf-fax-minaddr-v2-02.txt (that will obsolete RFC 2303) - draft-ietf-fax-faxaddr-v2-02.txt (that will obsolete RFC 2304) [[[Sooner or later, I will request addressing I-Ds to IESG]]] Along with draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-07.txt, the group is requesting draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-07.txt that will obsolete RFC 2302 should be BCP. With regard to RFC 2305, there is a draft-ietf-fax-service-v2-02.txt. But, it has a reference problem. In order to become Draft Standard, all normative references must be Draft Standard. It refers RFC 2301, 2304 and 1894. The group is requesting for RFC 2301 and 2304, as the above says. For RFC 1894, the group will cooperate with other WG like VPIM, in which it has the same problems for references. 1.2 IFax Gateway This is the new I-D for the group. It is draft-ietf-fax-gateway-protocol-01.txt. It mentions internet fax gateway protocol that has two functions of onramp and offramp. The main content is as follows. - Addressing - File format conversion - Drop duplications - Automatic retransmission - Error behaviour - Return notice - Addressing with FAX terminal at onramp - Authorization by DTMF at onramp It addresses how offramp and onramp gateway should do for these issues and how to implement them. 1.3 Implementers guide It is an informational document and clarifies published RFCs for fax communication over Internet mail. The group had already inputed draft-ietf-fax-implementers-guide-01.txt as the contribution of the last Q4/SG8 June meeting. The current version is 03. The difference between them is mainly as follows. - Changed text in subject field of DSN/MDN - Changed text in in text field of MDN - Description of Receiving Multiple TIFF-FX Attachments - Description of Addressing of '+' and '=' in ORCPT field - Editorial clarification, correction and modification As the communication letter from you suggested, the group will submit it as contribution for SG16 meeting after it is completed and RFC number is assigned for it. 1.4 FFPIM FFPIM aims at equivalence of T.30 service over Internet mail. There are the following three internet-drafts. a) draft-ietf-fax-ffpim-00.txt b) draft-ietf-fax-timely-delivery-00.txt c) draft-ietf-fax-content-negotiation-02.txt The draft-ietf-fax-ffpim-00.txt addresses timeliness (draft-ietf-fax-timely-delivery-00.txt), capability negotiation (draft-ietf-fax-content-negotiation-02.txt) and security consideration. With regard to a) and b), the stauts does not change. But DELIVERBY SMTP extension, which b) refers, has become RFC 2852. The editor is preparing the new version. With regard to c), the group has a new version 02. The difference between version 01 and 02 is mainly as follows. - Change the title - Modification about Content-alternative and Content-features issues - Extraction of TODO items - Editorial clarification, correction and modification The group is now refining it, according to the TODO items. Also, the group believes the draft can partly meet your requests on Full mode. 1.5 TIFF-FX extension According to extension of the ITU-T fax standard format, the group is considering the TIFF-FX extension. It includes new field values like 600x600dpi, relaxed constrains like more than 3 MRC layers, JBIG2 and so on. 2 Response on Full Mode The previous Q4/SG8's requests are as follows(italicised). [[[indented parts]]] 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. In short, the group thinks there are mainly the three requests as follows. a) Enhancement of capability mechanism (Request before transmitting a Tiff-fx file) b) Fax processed status information c) MDN enhancements With regard to item a), draft-ietf-fax-content-negotiation-02.txt can partly realise it. In the I-D, a sender can request receiver's capability along with transmission of Tiff Profile S document. When the receiver judges capability information is requested from the sender, it returns the information without printing it. When the receiver does not judge it, it only prints Tiff Profile S document. The WG is discussing it now. If ITU-T thinks it is necessary, the group can keep notifying the status. With regard to item b), there is no direct discussion in WG now. In WG's history, it is difficult to include fax-specific information in MDN and DSN. Because there are lots of applications based upon mail standard. With regard to item c), there is guidance on how MDN is used for Full mode Ifax in draft-ietf-fax-implementers-guide-03.txt, although it does not address the enhancements. The group believes the minimum notification can be done according to it without MDN enhancements. However, the group agrees that the enough dispostion-types for Ifax are not provided. The group may cooperate with ITU-T for this issue. There is another I-D that might partly solve this issue. It is draft-ietf-vpim-pndn-00.txt(Partial Non-Delivery Notifications). The group does not yet discuss it deeply. The WG would like to comment that any interested people can propose in IETF and IETF is welcome to direct contribution at IETF WGs by ITU people. Also, you can get all I-Ds in http://www.ietf.org/ID.html. 3 Inputted newly RFCs for T.37 The group is submitting two RFCs to this SG16 meeting along with this communication letter. They are RFC 2879 and RFC 2880. Please refer them. ... Finally, it is noted that FAX WG welcomes any comments from ITU-T. The WG believes the good relationship can continue. ----Next_Part(Thu_Oct_05_09:42:44_2000_955)---- From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Wed Oct 4 22:21:49 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id WAA07161 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 22:21:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA10271 for ietf-fax-bks; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 18:47:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from joy.songbird.com (IDENT:root@songbird.com [208.184.79.7]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA10267 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 18:47:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [63.112.8.190] ([63.112.8.190]) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA08575; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 18:51:08 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: joy.songbird.com: [63.112.8.190] didn't use HELO protocol Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.0.20001004181627.03481e20@mail.bayarea.net> X-Sender: dcrocker@mail.bayarea.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 18:37:13 -0700 To: Dan Wing From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: Fax content negotiation Cc: Graham Klyne , IETF fax WG , iwa@rdl.toshibatec.co.jp In-Reply-To: <0010031327020.8308-100000@omega.cisco.com> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001003172545.00aa5790@pop.dial.pipex.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: At 01:29 PM 10/3/00 -0700, Dan Wing wrote: >While travelling with a laptop that receives Internet faxes via your >inbox, you might only have access to a black and white printer. However, >while at your office, you might have access to a color printer. >... >Likelyhood of the above scenario? I dunno. This is an entirely reasonable scenario. It does not happen to me frequently, but it does happen. The normal approach to this kind of issue is Time To Live (TTL). It presumes that the user knows what value to set. Still, it might be the right model. d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Thu Oct 5 09:50:37 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id JAA29078 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 09:50:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA27679 for ietf-fax-bks; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 06:08:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vesuve.globetrotter.net (vesuve.globetrotter.net [142.169.1.81]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA27675 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 06:08:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from home.com ([206.162.183.130]) by vesuve.globetrotter.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA22929; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 09:11:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <39DBE151.C915395E@home.com> Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 22:02:58 -0400 From: Herman Silbiger Reply-To: hsilbiger@ieee.org X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hiroshi Tamura , IETF Fax List CC: Claudio Allocchio Subject: Re: IETF-FAX WG: Input to November SG16 meeting Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hiroshi et. al., I am at present attending the WTSA. You are right, the fax work is going to take place in SG16. In addition, all the fax work has been merged into a single question, since the membership in Q.4/8 and Q.1/8 was about identical. Alan Pugh of the UK will be the raqpporteur. Herman From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Thu Oct 5 10:05:11 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA29375 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 10:05:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA27776 for ietf-fax-bks; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 06:14:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from salvelinus.brooktrout.com (salvelinus.brooktrout.com [204.176.205.6]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA27771 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 06:14:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nhmail1.admin.brooktrout.com (nhmail1.admin.brooktrout.com [204.176.75.8]) by salvelinus.brooktrout.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/BTI-2.1) with ESMTP id JAA17299; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 09:00:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: by nhmail1.admin.brooktrout.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 09:11:27 -0400 Message-ID: <11740AB18BD4D111BE8F00A0C9B8044F0347F22C@nhmail1.admin.brooktrout.com> From: James Rafferty To: "'Hiroshi Tamura'" , ietf-fax@imc.org Cc: Claudio.Allocchio@elettra.trieste.it, hsilbiger@ieee.org Subject: RE: IETF-FAX WG: Input to November SG16 meeting Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 09:11:26 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Tamura-san, In the draft communication, there is the following text: >Along with draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-07.txt, the group is requesting >draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-07.txt that will obsolete RFC 2302 should be BCP. Actually, I assume that the draft tha obsoletes RFC 2302 and becomes a BCP is draft-ietf-fax-tiff-regbis-01.txt? James > -----Original Message----- > From: Hiroshi Tamura [mailto:tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp] > Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 8:43 PM > To: ietf-fax@imc.org > Cc: Claudio.Allocchio@elettra.trieste.it; hsilbiger@ieee.org > Subject: IETF-FAX WG: Input to November SG16 meeting > > > Folks, > > As I suggested in Pittsburgh and the minutes, we have a plan > to input a letter and RFCs to November SG16 meeting. > (From the information on-going WTSA, it seems that Q4/SG8 has moved to > new SG16.) I do not have there are any problems for the input. > But, I would like to get the WG's confirmation. > > 1 Input of RFCs > > RFC 2879: schema v2 > RFC 2880: T30-mapping > > At first, I would like to say I do not intend to input > all revised RFCs that T.37 refers. But these two RFCs are necessary. > > W.R.T. schema v2, some important feature expressions has changed > from RFC 2531. Without them, capability indication cannot be done. > > W.R.T. T30-mapping, T.37 Appendix III addresses it, but the RFC number > is not assigned there. > > 2 Input of a letter > > Attached is the draft letter. We have a request from previous Q4/SG8. > It includes the response as well as our WG status. Any comments, > addition or modification are appreciated. > > ... > > If there are any comments, please reply by October 12. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Regards, > -- > Hiroshi Tamura, Co-chair of IETF-FAX WG > > > From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Sun Oct 8 15:17:10 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id PAA10821 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 15:17:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA04988 for ietf-fax-bks; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 11:40:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail0.mia.bellsouth.net (mail0.mia.bellsouth.net [205.152.144.12]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA04984 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 11:40:05 -0700 (PDT) From: bubblehead32@hotmail.com Received: from www.goldendeckcasino.com (adsl-61-143-206.mia.bellsouth.net [208.61.143.206]) by mail0.mia.bellsouth.net (3.3.5alt/0.75.2) with SMTP id OAA00251; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 14:44:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200010081844.OAA00251@mail0.mia.bellsouth.net> To: <> Subject: WOW!!! Highest Payouts Around!!!!!!!! Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 14:35:15 -0400 X-Sender: bubblehead32@hotmail.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Its just like being there. Go to www.goldendeckcasino.com/goldendeckcasino/links/2769.html. If you would like to be removed from these mailings in the future please mailto:bubblehead32@hotmail.com?subject=remove From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Sun Oct 8 18:54:36 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id SAA11893 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 18:54:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA10196 for ietf-fax-bks; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 14:55:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from www.sinet.net.cn (szptt103-190.szptt.net.cn [202.103.190.3] (may be forged)) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA10191 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 14:55:39 -0700 (PDT) From: rsb@docsj.de Received: from pavilion (mig-fl29a-49.rasserver.net [206.214.131.49]) by www.sinet.net.cn (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with SMTP id VAA03353; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 21:55:39 GMT Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 21:55:39 GMT Message-Id: <200010082155.VAA03353@www.sinet.net.cn> To: rsb@docsj.de Subject: At last, HERBAL V the all natural alternative! Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Herbal V: An Incredible All-Natural Healthy Alternative Herbal V is the All Natural Approach to Male Virility, Vitality and Pleasure. Available N o w ! Welcome to the New Sexual Revolution. It's the all natural male potency and pleasure pill that men everywhere are buzzing about. Herbal V is safe, natural and specifically formulated to help support male sexual function and pleasure. You just take two easy-to-swallow tablets one hour before sex. And there's more great news - you can get Herbal V for less than $1 a pill. Amazing word of mouth praise on Herbal V has been spreading like wildfire-already over 1,500,000 men have chosen Herbal V. Since it is 100% natural you will never have to worry about safety. Try doctor-recommended Herbal V today and have the greatest night of your life! Herbal V... Bringing Back the Magic! 1,585,000 men can't be wrong. To date over 1 million men have tried the super supplement Herbal V. Here is why: No Doctor Visit Required Available Over the Counter Not a Drug 100% Natural Safe, No Worries Highest Quality Pharmaceutical-Grade Pure Nutriceuticals Guaranteed Potency & Purity Be a Real Man Again! Questions and Answers What is Herbal V? Herbal V is a proprietary blend that was specifically developed as a safe alternative for men who prefer an all-natural approach to address impotence and boost sexual performance. This amazing formula first became popular with Hollywood insiders and the wealthy elite. They were maximizing their sex lives, long before it was available to the general public. How does Herbal V work? Developed by a team whose goal was to create the perfect all-natural aphrodisiac. Herbal V is the result of that remarkable effort. The Herbal V formula contains a precise blend of cutting edge pro-sexual nutrients from around the world that provide nutritional support, making it possible for a man to have a pleasurable sexual experience. What can Herbal V do for me? Herbal V helps support male sexual function and pleasure in a safe and natural manner. Simply put, it can make your sex life incredible. Is Herbal V Safe? One of the great things about Herbal V is that it is not a drug. It is an incredible herbal dietary supplement that provides nutritional support for male sexual function and pleasure. One of the most comforting features of Herbal V is that you never have to worry about safety. Herbal V: Safe - Natural - Exciting Many have speculated that because Herbal V is so popular with men, it must contain prescription drugs or chemical components. Herbal V does not contain any elements or traces of any prescription drug. Herbal V is made using the world's most technologically advanced state-of-the-art cold processing equipment to ensure maximum purity. Herbal V has been independently analyzed by the nation's premier testing facility to ensure purity, quality and to end the rumors that, because it is so popular, it must somehow be chemical. It is not. Herbal V is natural - just as it says on the label. Herbal V is simply fantastic! Herbal V: Ingredients Yohimbe, saw palmetto, avena sativa, androstenedione, guarana, taurine, siberian ginseng, tribulus terrestris. Tribulus Terrestis is certified to enhanced testosterone levels by increasing Luteinzing hormone (LH) levels. Androstenedione which is a precursor to testosterone unlocks bound testosterone and makes it biologically active again quickly. This means a dramatic surge in desire. Avena Sativa Stimulates the neurotransmitter pleasure centers to maximum capacity. This greatly intensifies pleasure. Just listen to what Herbal V has done for the sex lives of people like you! “On a scale of 1 to 10, it's a 15. Electrifying. It's like a wonder pill!” — Justin Q B., New Haven, Texas “I haven't had sexual relations in 11 years. Then with Herbal V it was... wow! It works again!” — Sid R., Lakeland, Florida “I had sex four times in one night. It made me feel like a 19-year-old again.” — Chip S, Beech Mountain, North Carolina “Herbal V has turned my husband into a Sexual Superman! I like the fact that it's all natural and has no side effects. It's bringing back the good old days.” — Jennifer B, Beverly Hills, California The above testimonials are from product literature, and we have not independently verified them. However, the following testimonial is from a "senior" gentleman who has purchased his second bottle of Herbal V. When we heard his words with our own ears, we asked his permission to print them here. “Man! I'm wild as I can be! I feel like I'm 25 years old again! I'm not believing this!” — Mr. Murphy, age 64, Lampart, IL. Risk Free: Double Your Money Back Guarantee If Herbal V does not give the desired results as stated above, simply return the unused portion for a double-your money back refund. No questions asked ! Order Now: Safe, Fast, Secure, Private Herbal V with its DOUBLE YOUR MONEY BACK GUARANTEE is available only through this special promotional offer. Herbal V arrives in plain packaging for your privacy. Any and all information is kept strictly confidential. Payment Methods You may FAX or Postal Mail Checks, MasterCard, Visa, & American Express.payments. Money Orders are accepted only by Postal Mail. Each bottle of Herbal V contains 30 tablets, approximately a 1 month supply. Step 1: Place a check by your desired quanity. ______ 1 Bottle of Herbal V $24 ______ 2 Bottles of Herbal V $44 ______ 3 Bottles of Herbal V $59 Please add $6 shipping and handling for any size order. [ Total cost including shipping & handling, 1 bottle=$30, 2 bottles=$50, 3 bottles=$65 ] International Orders Please add $16 shipping and handling for any size order. [ Total cost including shipping & handling, 1 bottle=$40, 2 bottles=$60, 3 bottles=$75 ] Step 2: Place a check by your desired payment method and complete fields if necessary. _____Check or CHECK-BY-FAX [details below] _____Money Order _____American Express Account Number__________________ Exp____/____ _____Visa Account Number__________________ Exp____/____ _____MasterCard Account Number__________________ Exp____/____ Please make your check or money order payable to "Lion Sciences National". Step 3: Please complete and print the following fields clearly. Name ___________________________________________________ Address _________________________________________________ City ____________________________________________________ State ___________________________________________________ Zip _____________________________________________________ E-mail __________________________________________________ Signature _________________________________________________ [ required for check and credit card orders] Toll Free FAX Order Line: 1-800-940-6590 If faxing in your order, please state whether you require a fax, email, or no confirmation at all. Allow up to one day for confirmation, if requested. FAX orders are processed immediately. Or, print & mail to: LSN 3502 N. Powerline Rd. #525 Pompano Beach, FL 33069 ______________________________________________________ *CHECK BY FAX ORDERS: Complete the check as normal. Tape the check in the area below. Below the check, clearly write the check number, all numbers at the bottom of the check, & your name. Tape the check below and fax the check to the toll free FAX number above. Void the check. Our merchant will electronically debit your account for the amount of the check; your reference number for this transaction will be your check number. Nothing could be safer & easier ! TAPE CHECK BELOW _____________________________________________________________ This is a one time mailing: Removal is automatic and no further contact is necessary. Please Note: Herbal V is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. As individuals differ, so will results. Herbal V helps provide herbal and nutritional support for male sexual performance. The FDA has not evaluated these statements. For details about our double your money back guarantee, please write to the above address, attention consumer affairs department; enclose a self addressed stamped envelope for this and any requested contact information. Thank You. From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Mon Oct 9 21:03:27 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id VAA12082 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 21:03:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA23378 for ietf-fax-bks; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 17:09:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ricohigw.ricoh.co.jp (ricohigw.ricoh.co.jp [202.32.12.1]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA23374 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 17:09:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from thunder.ricoh.co.jp (thunder [133.139.211.198]) by ricohigw.ricoh.co.jp (8.9.3+3.2W/3.7W) with ESMTP id JAA05913; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 09:14:07 +0900 (JST) Received: from newton.toda.ricoh.co.jp (newton.toda.ricoh.co.jp [133.139.60.10]) by thunder.ricoh.co.jp (8.9.3+3.2W/3.7W) with SMTP id JAA12543; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 09:14:05 +0900 (JST) Received: from localhost (maple.toda.ricoh.co.jp [133.139.60.73]) by newton.toda.ricoh.co.jp (8.6.11+2.4W/3.3W9-1.0S8sun) with ESMTP id HAA02046; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 07:31:42 +0900 To: jraff@brooktrout.com Cc: ietf-fax@imc.org, Claudio.Allocchio@elettra.trieste.it, hsilbiger@ieee.org Subject: RE: IETF-FAX WG: Input to November SG16 meeting In-Reply-To: <11740AB18BD4D111BE8F00A0C9B8044F0347F22C@nhmail1.admin.brooktrout.com> References: <11740AB18BD4D111BE8F00A0C9B8044F0347F22C@nhmail1.admin.brooktrout.com> X-Mailer: Mew version 1.94.2 on Emacs 20.4 / Mule 4.1 (AOI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20001010091658I.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 09:16:58 +0900 (JST) From: Hiroshi Tamura X-Dispatcher: imput version 20000228(IM140) Lines: 20 Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Rafferty-san, > In the draft communication, there is the following text: > > >Along with draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-07.txt, the group is requesting > >draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-07.txt that will obsolete RFC 2302 should be BCP. > > Actually, I assume that the draft tha obsoletes RFC 2302 and becomes > a BCP is draft-ietf-fax-tiff-regbis-01.txt? Yes, you are right. It's my mistake. Thank you for your indication. Regards, -- Hiroshi Tamura, Co-chair of IETF-FAX WG From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Mon Oct 9 22:26:06 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id WAA13732 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 22:26:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA24754 for ietf-fax-bks; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 18:20:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ricohigw.ricoh.co.jp (ricohigw.ricoh.co.jp [202.32.12.1]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA24749 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 18:20:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from thunder.ricoh.co.jp (thunder [133.139.211.198]) by ricohigw.ricoh.co.jp (8.9.3+3.2W/3.7W) with ESMTP id KAA03043; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:22:31 +0900 (JST) Received: from newton.toda.ricoh.co.jp (newton.toda.ricoh.co.jp [133.139.60.10]) by thunder.ricoh.co.jp (8.9.3+3.2W/3.7W) with SMTP id KAA09881; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:22:29 +0900 (JST) Received: from localhost (maple.toda.ricoh.co.jp [133.139.60.73]) by newton.toda.ricoh.co.jp (8.6.11+2.4W/3.3W9-1.0S8sun) with ESMTP id IAA02539; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 08:40:06 +0900 To: ned.freed@innosoft.com, paf@cisco.com, ietf-secretariat@ietf.org Cc: Claudio.Allocchio@elettra.trieste.it, ietf-fax@imc.org Subject: [IETF-FAX] Request for IESG Consideration on Address I-Ds X-Mailer: Mew version 1.94.2 on Emacs 20.4 / Mule 4.1 (AOI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; boundary="--Next_Part(Tue_Oct_10_10:25:06_2000_955)--" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20001010102521X.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:25:21 +0900 (JST) From: Hiroshi Tamura X-Dispatcher: imput version 20000228(IM140) Lines: 299 Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: ----Next_Part(Tue_Oct_10_10:25:06_2000_955)-- Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Ned, Dear Patrik, Dear IETF secretary, I am Hiroshi Tamura, a co-chair of IETF FAX WG. The Internet Fax Working Group requests IESG approval for publication of the following two documents, with the specified status. .................................................................... - Document 1 : Minimal GSTN address format in Internet Mail draft-ietf-fax-minaddr-v2-02.txt (update of RFC 2303) Status: Draft Standard Technical Summary This memo describes a simple method of encoding GSTN addresses (commonly called "telephone numbers") in the local-part of Internet email addresses, along with an extension mechanism to allow encoding of additional standard attributes needed for email gateways to GSTN-based services. The method used is of general use for various application services where GSTN addresses and e-mail addresses are involved, like FAX and Voice Mail. The standard encoding method allows an easy interoperability of onramp/offramp gateways connecting e-mail service to other messaging systems using GSTN addresses. Currently the generic encoding method is being deployed inside Internet FAX compliant applications, which proved to interoperate correctly, but also global messaging application services are adopting it. The document also provides the needed documentation, procedures and templates for a correct registration c/o IANA of the extensions which can be defined. There are only editorial clarifications and correcetions from RFC 2303. Also, during the WG Last Call period, there were no comments. The related interworking report is attached to this mail. All the normative references are Standard. Attached is also the reference report. - Document 2 : Minimal FAX address format in Internet Mail draft-ietf-fax-faxaddr-v2-02.txt (update of RFC 2304) Status: Draft Standard Technical Summary This memo describes a simple method of encoding GSTN addresses of facsimile devices in the local-part of Internet email addresses. It is an application of draft-ietf-fax-minaddr-v2-02.txt for the specific internet fax service. It also defines one qualifier needed to support correclty ITU T.33 subaddresses inside internet fax e-mail addresses. The specification has been implemented independently inside internet fax products and the tests proved correct interoperability. It also includes the IANA registration of the T33S qualifier. There are mainly clarification issues related to T.33 subaddress form RFC 2304. Others are only editorial clarifications and correcetions. Also, during the WG Last Call period, there were no comments. The interworking report is attached to this mail. This I-Ds was already modified for T.33 subaddress clarification by Pittsburgh meeting and editorially corrected by the Last Call. All the normative references are Standard. Attached is also the reference report. - Interworking report : The summary is as follows. RFC2304 IMPLEMENTATION REPORT SUMMARY This report describes the implementation and interoperability testing of RFC2304 "Minimal FAX address format in Internet Mail". RFC2304 is the application of RFC2303 generic specification to FAX addresses. The test was held on the 28th June 2000 in Japan. MGCS Inc. and TOYOCOM Inc. independently implemented and jointly tested RFC2304. They satisfied the items of "RFC2304 Interworking Configuration Matrix" which has deliverd to Fax Connect II. (http://www.imc.org/imc-faxconnect/). ..................... Best Regards, -- Hiroshi Tamura IETF FAX WG co-chair ----Next_Part(Tue_Oct_10_10:25:06_2000_955)-- Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="IWR_addressing.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RFC2304 IMPLEMENTATION REPORT This report describes the implementation and interoperability testing of RFC2304 "Minimal FAX address format in Internet Mail". The test was held on the 28th June 2000 in Japan. The following independently implemented and jointly tested RFC2304. Matsushita Graphic Communication Systems Inc. TOYOCOM Inc. This report is organized in 2 sections. Section 1 describes the method and results of RFC2304 interoperability testing. Section 2 describes the independent RFC2304 implementations, by implementor. RFC2304 is the application of RFC2303 generic specification to FAX addresses. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SECTION 1: RFC2304 INTEROPERABILITY TESTING ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Testing Method 1-1. TOYOCOM sends the data to Internet Fax (IFAX) of M.G.C.S. (figure 1) . --------- ------------ ---------- ------ | Gateway | | IFAX | |Onramp GW | | | | TOYOCOM | ------->| M.G.C.S. |------>| DX-2000 |----->| PC | |_________| Internet|____________| PSTN |__________| LAN |______| figure 1 1)OnRamp Gateway of TOYOCOM sends the data with the following address formula. FAX=+81312345677@ifax.mgcs.mei.co.jp FAX=+81312345677/T33S=1234@ifax.mgcs.mei.co.jp FAX=+81312345677/T33S=5678@ifax.mgcs.mei.co.jp FAX+81-3-12345677@ifax.mgcs.mei.co.jp FAX=+81312345677/T33S=1234@ifax.mgcs.mei.co.jp and FAX=+81312345677/T33S=5678@ifax.mgcs.mei.co.jp /FAX=+81-3-12345677/T33S=1234/@ifax.mgcs.mei.co.jp and /FAX=+81.3.12345677/T33S=5678/@ifax.mgcs.mei.co.jp 2)IFax of M.G.C.S. sends the fax to DX-2000 with the addresss 03-12345677 including sub-address 1234 and/or 5678. 3)DX-2000(IFAX made by Panafax) sends e-mail to PC which has the corresponding e-mail address of the sub address. DX-2000 is used for verification method of sub address field in FIF. 1-2. M.G.C.S. sends the data to the OffRamp Gateway of TOYOCOM (figure 2) . --------- ------------ ---------- ------ | IFAX | | Gateway | |Onramp GW | | | | M.G.C.S | ------->| TOYOCOM |------>| DX-2000 |----->| PC | |_________| Internet|____________| PSTN |__________| LAN |______| figure 2 1)M.G.C.S. sends the data to the OffRamp Gateway of TOYOCOM (figure 2). FAX=+81312345677@ifax.toyocom.co.jp FAX=+81312345677/T33S=1234@ifax.toyocom.co.jp etc. 2),3) repeat same procedure as article 2-1. 3. Results We satisfied the items of "RFC2304 Interworking Configuration Matrix" which has deliverd to Fax Connect II. (http://www.imc.org/imc-faxconnect/) The items are below. 1) Minimum Specification (MUST) All implementations supporting this FAX over e-mail address format MUST supports as a minimum the specification described in this document(RFC 2304) 2) qualif-type1 element (REQUIRED) The minimal addressing for the fax service also requires support for a "qualif-type1" elment. This element is an OPTIONAL element of the fax address, but its support, when present, is REQUIRED. 3) Fax address minimum specification (REQUIRED) The minimal specification of a fax in e-mail address is: fax-address = fax-mbox["T33S="sub-addr] fax-mbox = "FAX="global-phone 4) Multiple T.33 Subaddresses (MUST) In case a particular service requires multiple T.33 subaddresses, and these subaddresses need to be given on the same "fax-mbox", multiple "fax-email" elements will be used. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SECTION 2: RFC2304 IMPLEMENTATIONS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of implementation: MGCS Internet Fax Organization: Matsushita Graphic Communication Systems Inc. Platforms: original appliance Location of code: proprietary to MGCS Inc. Contact: Kiyoshi Toyoda Implemented Features: Full features of RFC2304 Name of implementation: TOYOCOM OnRamp and OffRamp Gateway Organization: TOYOCOM Inc. Platforms: Windows NT Server ver.4.0 Location of code: proprietary to TOYOCOM Inc. Contact: Katsuhiko Mimura Implemented Features: Full features of RFC2304 ----Next_Part(Tue_Oct_10_10:25:06_2000_955)-- Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Ref_addressing.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit DRAFT-IETF-FAX-FAXADDR-V2-02.TXT [1] Postel, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", STD 10, RFC 821, August 1982. (or updated by DRUMS?) Status: Standard [2] Crocker, D., " Standard for the format of ARPA Internet text messages", STD 11, RFC 822, August 1982. (or updated by DRUMS) Status: Standard [3] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet hosts - application and support", RFC 1123, October 1989. Status: Standard [4] Malamud, C. and M. Rose, "Principles of Operation for the TPC.INT Subdomain: Remote Printing -- Technical Procedures", RFC 1528, October 1993. Non normative reference for this document - could be removed [5] Eastlake, D. and C. Kaufman, "Domain Name System Security Extensions", RFC 2065, January 1997. Status: Proposed Standard (non normative reference for this document) [6] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997. Non normative reference [7] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications", RFC 2234, November 1997. Status: Proposed Standard (non normative reference for this document) [8] ITU F.401 - Message Handling Services: Naming and Addressing for Public Message Handling Service; recommendation F.401 (August 1992) Status: standard [9] ITU F.423 - Message Handling Services: Intercommunication Between the Interpersonal Messaging Service and the Telefax Service; recommendation F.423 (August 1992) Status: standard [10] ITU E.164 - The International Public Telecommunication Numbering Plan E.164/I.331 (May 1997) Status: standard [11] ITU T.33 - Facsimile routing utilizing the subaddress; recommendation T.33 (July, 1996) Status: standard [12] ETSI I-ETS 300,380 - Universal Personal Telecommunication (UPT): Access Devices Dual Tone Multi Frequency (DTMF) sender for acoustical coupling to the microphone of a handset telephone (March 1995) Status: standard [13] Allocchio, C., "Minimal GSTN address format in Internet Mail", RFC 2303bis, xxxx 1999. Status: submitted for draft standard [14] Kille, S., "MIXER (Mime Internet X.400 Enhanced Relay): Mapping between X.400 and RFC 822/MIME", RFC 2156, January 1998. Status: Proposed Standard, non normative for this document. [15] Allocchio, C. "GSTN address element extensions in e-mail services", RFC 2846, June 2000. Status: Proposed Standard, non normative for this document. draft-ietf-fax-minaddr-v2-02.txt same as FAXADDR plus... [16] Narten, T., Alvestrand, H., "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 2434, October 1998. Status: non normative document for this specification. ----Next_Part(Tue_Oct_10_10:25:06_2000_955)---- From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Mon Oct 9 22:37:51 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id WAA14686 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 22:37:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA25377 for ietf-fax-bks; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 18:59:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from westhost16.westhost.net (westhost16.westhost.com [216.71.84.74] (may be forged)) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA25373 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 18:59:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipunity.com (w226.z208176132.sjc-ca.dsl.cnc.net [208.176.132.226]) by westhost16.westhost.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA25988 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 20:56:00 -0500 Message-ID: <39E278D9.FD18106C@ipunity.com> Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 19:03:05 -0700 From: Paul Schranz Organization: IP Unity X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.7 sun4u) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-fax@imc.org Subject: Internet Fax vs. Email with TIFF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear IETF-FAX Working Group, In a Unified Messaging (UM) scenario where fax is received into a UM account, identified by a telephone number, how do I know that it is an Internet Fax as opposed to a regular email with a TIFF file attachment? The FROM field could give indication that it originated from a G3FAX device, but this won't work if it orginated from an IFAX device. Thanks, Paul Schranz From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Tue Oct 10 05:38:06 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id FAA00151 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 05:38:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA06322 for ietf-fax-bks; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 01:58:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monsoon.mail.pipex.net (monsoon.mail.pipex.net [158.43.128.69]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA06316 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 01:58:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 2966 invoked from network); 10 Oct 2000 09:02:25 -0000 Received: from userej24.uk.uudial.com (HELO GK-VAIO.Dial.pipex.com) (62.188.13.35) by smtp.dial.pipex.com with SMTP; 10 Oct 2000 09:02:25 -0000 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001010084753.00e4e8e0@pop.dial.pipex.com> X-Sender: xex41@pop.dial.pipex.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 08:53:15 +0100 To: Paul Schranz From: Graham Klyne Subject: Re: Internet Fax vs. Email with TIFF Cc: ietf-fax@imc.org In-Reply-To: <39E278D9.FD18106C@ipunity.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Paul, Internet fax is, by design, an e-mail with TIFF image content. It is intended that it be maximally interoperable with regular e-mail. I'm not sure why you want to distinguish between fax and e-mail-with-TIFF, but the VPIM working group are considering a specification for a 'message-hint' indicator that might be used for this: . #g -- At 07:03 PM 10/9/00 -0700, Paul Schranz wrote: >Dear IETF-FAX Working Group, > >In a Unified Messaging (UM) scenario where fax is received into a UM >account, identified by a telephone number, how do I know that it is an >Internet Fax as opposed to a regular email with a TIFF file attachment? > >The FROM field could give indication that it originated from a G3FAX >device, but this won't work if it orginated from an IFAX device. ------------ Graham Klyne (GK@ACM.ORG) From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Tue Oct 10 17:04:12 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id RAA13267 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 17:04:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA11770 for ietf-fax-bks; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:26:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from himalia.eastgw.xerox.com (himalia.xerox.com [208.140.33.21]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA11765 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:26:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from godzilla.ADOC.xerox.com (godzilla.ADOC.xerox.com [13.242.128.10]) by himalia.eastgw.xerox.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA18877; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:30:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mercury.adoc.xerox.com (mercury [13.242.100.20]) by godzilla.ADOC.xerox.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8/ADOC-HUB-1.7) with ESMTP id NAA02685; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:30:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mercury.ADOC.xerox.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:30:46 -0700 Message-ID: <51B8ABCE456FD111899900805F6FD6EE067A2C6F@mercury.ADOC.xerox.com> From: "McIntyre, Lloyd" To: "'Graham Klyne'" , Paul Schranz Cc: ietf-fax@imc.org Subject: RE: Internet Fax vs. Email with TIFF Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:30:45 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Graham, One rational for identifying an IFax oriented message is to accommodate automatic processing and rendering. Relying on the MIME content sub-type being TIFF will lead to errors. Lloyd > -----Original Message----- > From: Graham Klyne [mailto:GK@dial.pipex.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 12:53 AM > To: Paul Schranz > Cc: ietf-fax@imc.org > Subject: Re: Internet Fax vs. Email with TIFF > > > Paul, > > Internet fax is, by design, an e-mail with TIFF image content. It is > intended that it be maximally interoperable with regular e-mail. > > I'm not sure why you want to distinguish between fax and > e-mail-with-TIFF, > but the VPIM working group are considering a specification for a > 'message-hint' indicator that might be used for > this: . > > #g > -- > > > At 07:03 PM 10/9/00 -0700, Paul Schranz wrote: > > >Dear IETF-FAX Working Group, > > > >In a Unified Messaging (UM) scenario where fax is received into a UM > >account, identified by a telephone number, how do I know > that it is an > >Internet Fax as opposed to a regular email with a TIFF file > attachment? > > > >The FROM field could give indication that it originated from a G3FAX > >device, but this won't work if it orginated from an IFAX device. > > > > ------------ > Graham Klyne > (GK@ACM.ORG) > From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Tue Oct 10 17:58:45 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id RAA14190 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 17:58:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA13438 for ietf-fax-bks; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:14:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hose.pipex.net (hose.mail.pipex.net [158.43.128.58]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA13432 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:14:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from GK-VAIO.Dial.pipex.com (useret51.uk.uudial.com [62.188.17.36]) by hose.pipex.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3FE0452B; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 22:18:28 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001010215051.00aa6490@pop.dial.pipex.com> X-Sender: maiw03@pop.dial.pipex.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 21:52:28 +0100 To: "McIntyre, Lloyd" From: Graham Klyne Subject: RE: Internet Fax vs. Email with TIFF Cc: Paul Schranz , ietf-fax@imc.org In-Reply-To: <51B8ABCE456FD111899900805F6FD6EE067A2C6F@mercury.ADOC.xero x.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Hi Lloyd, Hmmm... what kind of automatic processing? The message-hint that I alluded to is aimed more at uder interaction, and is quite clear that it shouldn't be used to determine essential processing actions. #g At 01:30 PM 10/10/00 -0700, McIntyre, Lloyd wrote: >Graham, >One rational for identifying an IFax oriented message is to accommodate >automatic processing and rendering. Relying on the MIME content sub-type >being TIFF will lead to errors. > >Lloyd > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Graham Klyne [mailto:GK@dial.pipex.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 12:53 AM > > To: Paul Schranz > > Cc: ietf-fax@imc.org > > Subject: Re: Internet Fax vs. Email with TIFF > > > > > > Paul, > > > > Internet fax is, by design, an e-mail with TIFF image content. It is > > intended that it be maximally interoperable with regular e-mail. > > > > I'm not sure why you want to distinguish between fax and > > e-mail-with-TIFF, > > but the VPIM working group are considering a specification for a > > 'message-hint' indicator that might be used for > > this: . > > > > #g > > -- > > > > > > At 07:03 PM 10/9/00 -0700, Paul Schranz wrote: > > > > >Dear IETF-FAX Working Group, > > > > > >In a Unified Messaging (UM) scenario where fax is received into a UM > > >account, identified by a telephone number, how do I know > > that it is an > > >Internet Fax as opposed to a regular email with a TIFF file > > attachment? > > > > > >The FROM field could give indication that it originated from a G3FAX > > >device, but this won't work if it orginated from an IFAX device. > > > > > > > > ------------ > > Graham Klyne > > (GK@ACM.ORG) > > ------------ Graham Klyne (GK@ACM.ORG) From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Tue Oct 10 18:04:31 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id SAA14348 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 18:04:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA14006 for ietf-fax-bks; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:30:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from himalia.eastgw.xerox.com (himalia.xerox.com [208.140.33.21]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA14001 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:30:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from godzilla.ADOC.xerox.com (godzilla.ADOC.xerox.com [13.242.128.10]) by himalia.eastgw.xerox.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA15556; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 17:34:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mercury.adoc.xerox.com (mercury [13.242.100.20]) by godzilla.ADOC.xerox.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8/ADOC-HUB-1.7) with ESMTP id OAA03502; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:34:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mercury.ADOC.xerox.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:34:40 -0700 Message-ID: <51B8ABCE456FD111899900805F6FD6EE067A2C70@mercury.ADOC.xerox.com> From: "McIntyre, Lloyd" To: "'Graham Klyne'" , "McIntyre, Lloyd" Cc: Paul Schranz , ietf-fax@imc.org Subject: RE: Internet Fax vs. Email with TIFF Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:34:38 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Graham, Kind of late isn't it - using those tooth picks to hold up the eyelids<-:) I am only referencing the ability to determine whether or not to automatically process and print the document (simulating a PSTN fax machine which automatically prints incoming messages - a turn-key system) rather than leaving it in the message queue where user action is required to identify the message and then make the determination to print. Lloyd > -----Original Message----- > From: Graham Klyne [mailto:GK@Dial.pipex.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 1:52 PM > To: McIntyre, Lloyd > Cc: Paul Schranz; ietf-fax@imc.org > Subject: RE: Internet Fax vs. Email with TIFF > > > Hi Lloyd, > > Hmmm... what kind of automatic processing? > > The message-hint that I alluded to is aimed more at uder > interaction, and > is quite clear that it shouldn't be used to determine > essential processing > actions. > > #g > > > At 01:30 PM 10/10/00 -0700, McIntyre, Lloyd wrote: > >Graham, > >One rational for identifying an IFax oriented message is to > accommodate > >automatic processing and rendering. Relying on the MIME > content sub-type > >being TIFF will lead to errors. > > > >Lloyd > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Graham Klyne [mailto:GK@dial.pipex.com] > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 12:53 AM > > > To: Paul Schranz > > > Cc: ietf-fax@imc.org > > > Subject: Re: Internet Fax vs. Email with TIFF > > > > > > > > > Paul, > > > > > > Internet fax is, by design, an e-mail with TIFF image > content. It is > > > intended that it be maximally interoperable with regular e-mail. > > > > > > I'm not sure why you want to distinguish between fax and > > > e-mail-with-TIFF, > > > but the VPIM working group are considering a specification for a > > > 'message-hint' indicator that might be used for > > > this: . > > > > > > #g > > > -- > > > > > > > > > At 07:03 PM 10/9/00 -0700, Paul Schranz wrote: > > > > > > >Dear IETF-FAX Working Group, > > > > > > > >In a Unified Messaging (UM) scenario where fax is > received into a UM > > > >account, identified by a telephone number, how do I know > > > that it is an > > > >Internet Fax as opposed to a regular email with a TIFF file > > > attachment? > > > > > > > >The FROM field could give indication that it originated > from a G3FAX > > > >device, but this won't work if it orginated from an IFAX device. > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------ > > > Graham Klyne > > > (GK@ACM.ORG) > > > > > ------------ > Graham Klyne > (GK@ACM.ORG) > From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Wed Oct 11 07:09:34 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id HAA06444 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 07:09:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA05078 for ietf-fax-bks; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 03:26:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA05073 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 03:26:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA05634; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 06:31:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200010111031.GAA05634@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: ietf-fax@imc.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-fax-content-negotiation-03.txt Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 06:31:23 -0400 Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Internet Fax Working Group of the IETF. Title : Content Negotiation for Internet Messaging Services Author(s) : G. Klyne, R. IWAZAKI, D. Crocker Filename : draft-ietf-fax-content-negotiation-03.txt Pages : 37 Date : 10-Oct-00 This memo describes a content negotiation mechanism for facsimile, voice and other messaging services that use Internet e-mail. Services such as facsimile and voice messaging need to cope with new message content formats, yet need to ensure that the content of any given message is renderable by the receiving agent. The mechanism described here aims to meet these needs in a fashion that is fully compatible with the current behaviour and expectations of Internet e-mail. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-fax-content-negotiation-03.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-fax-content-negotiation-03.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-fax-content-negotiation-03.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <20001010125749.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-fax-content-negotiation-03.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-fax-content-negotiation-03.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <20001010125749.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Wed Oct 11 07:13:30 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id HAA06517 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 07:13:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA05090 for ietf-fax-bks; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 03:26:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA05082 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 03:26:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA05648; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 06:31:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200010111031.GAA05648@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: ietf-fax@imc.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-fax-timely-delivery-01.txt Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 06:31:30 -0400 Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Internet Fax Working Group of the IETF. Title : Timely Delivery for Internet Messaging Services Author(s) : G. Klyne Filename : draft-ietf-fax-timely-delivery-01.txt Pages : 14 Date : 10-Oct-00 This proposal describes a way to request timely delivery for facsimile, voice and other messaging services that use Internet e-mail. It provides a deterministic service quality response, while preserving the traditional roles and responsibiltiies of the agents involved in e-mail transfers. It is essentially a profile of the DSN and DELIVERBY extentions for ESMTP, and a new COMPLIANCE extension for establishing the deterministic service quality response. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-fax-timely-delivery-01.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-fax-timely-delivery-01.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-fax-timely-delivery-01.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <20001010125812.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-fax-timely-delivery-01.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-fax-timely-delivery-01.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <20001010125812.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Wed Oct 11 07:42:44 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id HAA07252 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 07:42:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA06025 for ietf-fax-bks; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 03:59:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monsoon.mail.pipex.net (monsoon.mail.pipex.net [158.43.128.69]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA06021 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 03:59:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 17396 invoked from network); 11 Oct 2000 11:04:13 -0000 Received: from useret35.uk.uudial.com (HELO GK-VAIO.Dial.pipex.com) (62.188.17.20) by smtp.dial.pipex.com with SMTP; 11 Oct 2000 11:04:13 -0000 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001011105617.00e237d0@pop.dial.pipex.com> X-Sender: maiw03@pop.dial.pipex.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 10:59:33 +0100 To: "McIntyre, Lloyd" From: Graham Klyne Subject: RE: Internet Fax vs. Email with TIFF Cc: Paul Schranz , ietf-fax@imc.org In-Reply-To: <51B8ABCE456FD111899900805F6FD6EE067A2C70@mercury.ADOC.xero x.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Lloyd, OK, that sounds reasonable use of message-hint. Incorrect hint labelling wouldn't cause loss of any message. (Remember if you're going to automatic MDN, there needs to be an option for the user to disable this.) #g -- At 02:34 PM 10/10/00 -0700, McIntyre, Lloyd wrote: >Graham, >Kind of late isn't it - using those tooth picks to hold up the eyelids<-:) Yeah, I was busy last night ;-) >I am only referencing the ability to determine whether or not to >automatically process and print the document (simulating a PSTN fax machine >which automatically prints incoming messages - a turn-key system) rather >than leaving it in the message queue where user action is required to >identify the message and then make the determination to print. > >Lloyd > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Graham Klyne [mailto:GK@Dial.pipex.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 1:52 PM > > To: McIntyre, Lloyd > > Cc: Paul Schranz; ietf-fax@imc.org > > Subject: RE: Internet Fax vs. Email with TIFF > > > > > > Hi Lloyd, > > > > Hmmm... what kind of automatic processing? > > > > The message-hint that I alluded to is aimed more at uder > > interaction, and > > is quite clear that it shouldn't be used to determine > > essential processing > > actions. > > > > #g > > > > > > At 01:30 PM 10/10/00 -0700, McIntyre, Lloyd wrote: > > >Graham, > > >One rational for identifying an IFax oriented message is to > > accommodate > > >automatic processing and rendering. Relying on the MIME > > content sub-type > > >being TIFF will lead to errors. > > > > > >Lloyd > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Graham Klyne [mailto:GK@dial.pipex.com] > > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 12:53 AM > > > > To: Paul Schranz > > > > Cc: ietf-fax@imc.org > > > > Subject: Re: Internet Fax vs. Email with TIFF > > > > > > > > > > > > Paul, > > > > > > > > Internet fax is, by design, an e-mail with TIFF image > > content. It is > > > > intended that it be maximally interoperable with regular e-mail. > > > > > > > > I'm not sure why you want to distinguish between fax and > > > > e-mail-with-TIFF, > > > > but the VPIM working group are considering a specification for a > > > > 'message-hint' indicator that might be used for > > > > this: . > > > > > > > > #g > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > At 07:03 PM 10/9/00 -0700, Paul Schranz wrote: > > > > > > > > >Dear IETF-FAX Working Group, > > > > > > > > > >In a Unified Messaging (UM) scenario where fax is > > received into a UM > > > > >account, identified by a telephone number, how do I know > > > > that it is an > > > > >Internet Fax as opposed to a regular email with a TIFF file > > > > attachment? > > > > > > > > > >The FROM field could give indication that it originated > > from a G3FAX > > > > >device, but this won't work if it orginated from an IFAX device. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------ > > > > Graham Klyne > > > > (GK@ACM.ORG) > > > > > > > > ------------ > > Graham Klyne > > (GK@ACM.ORG) > > ------------ Graham Klyne (GK@ACM.ORG) From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Fri Oct 13 04:34:27 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id EAA01259 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 04:34:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA28604 for ietf-fax-bks; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 00:35:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ricohigw.ricoh.co.jp (ricohigw.ricoh.co.jp [202.32.12.1]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA28594 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 00:35:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from thunder.ricoh.co.jp (thunder [133.139.211.198]) by ricohigw.ricoh.co.jp (8.9.3+3.2W/3.7W) with ESMTP id QAA10198; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 16:38:31 +0900 (JST) Received: from newton.toda.ricoh.co.jp (newton.toda.ricoh.co.jp [133.139.60.10]) by thunder.ricoh.co.jp (8.9.3+3.2W/3.7W) with SMTP id QAA04013; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 16:38:30 +0900 (JST) Received: from localhost (maple.toda.ricoh.co.jp [133.139.60.73]) by newton.toda.ricoh.co.jp (8.6.11+2.4W/3.3W9-1.0S8sun) with ESMTP id QAA04705; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 16:38:25 +0900 To: ietf-fax@imc.org Cc: Claudio.Allocchio@elettra.trieste.it, hsilbiger@ieee.org, alan@mgcs.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: IETF-FAX WG: Input to November SG16 meeting In-Reply-To: <20001005094247X.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> References: <20001005094247X.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> X-Mailer: Mew version 1.94.2 on Emacs 20.4 / Mule 4.1 (AOI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; boundary="--Next_Part(Fri_Oct_13_16:40:39_2000_444)--" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20001013164130X.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 16:41:30 +0900 (JST) From: Hiroshi Tamura X-Dispatcher: imput version 20000228(IM140) Lines: 256 Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: ----Next_Part(Fri_Oct_13_16:40:39_2000_444)-- Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Folks, > As I suggested in Pittsburgh and the minutes, we have a plan > to input a letter and RFCs to November SG16 meeting. > (From the information on-going WTSA, it seems that Q4/SG8 has moved to > new SG16.) I do not have there are any problems for the input. > But, I would like to get the WG's confirmation. > > 1 Input of RFCs > > RFC 2879: schema v2 > RFC 2880: T30-mapping > > At first, I would like to say I do not intend to input > all revised RFCs that T.37 refers. But these two RFCs are necessary. > > W.R.T. schema v2, some important feature expressions has changed > from RFC 2531. Without them, capability indication cannot be done. > > W.R.T. T30-mapping, T.37 Appendix III addresses it, but the RFC number > is not assigned there. > > 2 Input of a letter > > Attached is the draft letter. We have a request from previous Q4/SG8. > It includes the response as well as our WG status. Any comments, > addition or modification are appreciated. Regarding the input to ITU-T itself, there are no comments. Therefore, the input has been decided. After getting the final confirmation of ISOC VP and ADs, I will submit two RFCs as the contribution to SG16 November meeting. Regarding the letter, there is an editorial modification on TIFF-REG. Thank you, Rafferty-san. Also, two I-Ds related to FFPIM are updated. Therefore, FFPIM parts are a little modified. Thank you, Klyne-san. Attached is the new one. The letter will be directly inputed to the rapporteur of the newly assigned question in SG16, which handles T.37. Thank you for your cooperation. Regards, -- Hiroshi Tamura, Co-chair of IETF-FAX WG ----Next_Part(Fri_Oct_13_16:40:39_2000_444)-- Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="toITU.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit [[[]]] is only for this mail. ---- TITLE: Communication from IETF Fax Working Group on Current Activities and Response on Full Mode Abstract This letter is to notify current activities of IETF Fax Working Group and respond to the request the previous Q4/SG8 made to FAX WG. Introduction IETF FAX Working Group meeting was held at Pittsburgh last August. Your communication letter was inputted to it. The group always appreciates it. 1 Working Group Status 1.1 Request of Draft Standard on Simple mode RFCs There are the following Internet-Drafts(I-Ds) that the WG is now requesting to IESG for Draft Standard consideration. - draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-07.txt (that will obsolete RFC 2301) - draft-ietf-fax-minaddr-v2-02.txt (that will obsolete RFC 2303) - draft-ietf-fax-faxaddr-v2-02.txt (that will obsolete RFC 2304) Along with draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-07.txt, the group is requesting draft-ietf-fax-tiff-regbis-01.txt that will obsolete RFC 2302 should be BCP. With regard to RFC 2305, there is a draft-ietf-fax-service-v2-02.txt. But, it has a reference problem. In order to become Draft Standard, all normative references must be Draft Standard. It refers RFC 2301, 2304 and 1894. The group is requesting for RFC 2301 and 2304, as the above says. For RFC 1894, the group will cooperate with other WG like VPIM, in which it has the same problems for references. 1.2 IFax Gateway This is the new I-D for the group. It is draft-ietf-fax-gateway-protocol-01.txt. It mentions internet fax gateway protocol that has two functions of onramp and offramp. The main content is as follows. - Addressing - File format conversion - Drop duplications - Automatic retransmission - Error behaviour - Return notice - Addressing with FAX terminal at onramp - Authorization by DTMF at onramp It addresses how offramp and onramp gateway should do for these issues and how to implement them. 1.3 Implementers guide It is an informational document and clarifies published RFCs for fax communication over Internet mail. The group had already inputed draft-ietf-fax-implementers-guide-01.txt as the contribution of the last Q4/SG8 June meeting. The current version is 03. The difference between them is mainly as follows. - Changed text in subject field of DSN/MDN - Changed text in in text field of MDN - Description of Receiving Multiple TIFF-FX Attachments - Description of Addressing of '+' and '=' in ORCPT field - Editorial clarification, correction and modification As the communication letter from you suggested, the group will submit it as contribution for SG16 meeting after it is completed and RFC number is assigned for it. 1.4 FFPIM FFPIM aims at equivalence of T.30 service over Internet mail. There are the following three internet-drafts. a) draft-ietf-fax-ffpim-00.txt b) draft-ietf-fax-timely-delivery-01.txt c) draft-ietf-fax-content-negotiation-03.txt The draft-ietf-fax-ffpim-00.txt addresses timeliness (draft-ietf-fax-timely-delivery-01.txt), capability negotiation (draft-ietf-fax-content-negotiation-03.txt) and security consideration. The group already explained the contents in the last Q4/SG8 meeting. Therefore, only the main differeces are described below. With regard to a), the stauts does not change. With regard to b), the group has a new version 01. As DELIVERBY SMTP extension which is the most important reference, has become RFC 2852. the reference is updated. Also, some chapters or sections such as "Mechanism " and "Compliance required" are reviewed and refined. With regard to c), the group has a new version 03. The difference between version 01 and 03 is mainly as follows. - Change the title in order that other application can apply - Modification on Content-alternative and Content-features issues - Addition on Alternative-available option - Addition on "Original-Message-ID" message header - Extraction of TODO items - Editorial clarification, correction and modification The group is now refining it, according to the TODO items. Also, the group believes the draft can partly meet your requests on Full mode. 1.5 TIFF-FX extension According to extension of the ITU-T fax standard format, the group is considering the TIFF-FX extension. It includes new field values like 600x600dpi, relaxed constrains like more than 3 MRC layers, JBIG2 and so on. 2 Response on Full Mode The previous Q4/SG8's requests are as follows(italicised). [[[indented parts]]] 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. In short, the group thinks there are mainly the three requests as follows. a) Enhancement of capability mechanism (Request before transmitting a Tiff-fx file) b) Fax processed status information c) MDN enhancements With regard to item a), draft-ietf-fax-content-negotiation-02.txt can partly realise it. In the I-D, a sender can request receiver's capability along with transmission of Tiff Profile S document. When the receiver judges capability information is requested from the sender, it returns the information without printing it. When the receiver does not judge it, it only prints Tiff Profile S document. The WG is discussing it now. If ITU-T thinks it is necessary, the group can keep notifying the status. With regard to item b), there is no direct discussion in WG now. In WG's history, it is difficult to include fax-specific information in MDN and DSN. Because there are lots of applications based upon mail standard. With regard to item c), there is guidance on how MDN is used for Full mode Ifax in draft-ietf-fax-implementers-guide-03.txt, although it does not address the enhancements. The group believes the minimum notification can be done according to it without MDN enhancements. However, the group agrees that the enough dispostion-types for Ifax are not provided. The group may cooperate with ITU-T for this issue. There is another I-D that might partly solve this issue. It is draft-ietf-vpim-pndn-00.txt(Partial Non-Delivery Notifications). The group does not yet discuss it deeply. The WG would like to comment that any interested people can propose in IETF and IETF is welcome to direct contribution at IETF WGs by ITU people. Also, you can get all I-Ds in http://www.ietf.org/ID.html. 3 Inputted newly RFCs for T.37 The group is submitting two RFCs to this SG16 meeting along with this communication letter. They are RFC 2879 and RFC 2880. Please refer them. ... Finally, it is noted that FAX WG welcomes any comments from ITU-T. The WG believes the good relationship can continue. ----Next_Part(Fri_Oct_13_16:40:39_2000_444)---- From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Fri Oct 13 04:59:32 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id EAA01425 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 04:59:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA00247 for ietf-fax-bks; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 01:15:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ricohigw.ricoh.co.jp (ricohigw.ricoh.co.jp [202.32.12.1]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA00243 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 01:15:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from thunder.ricoh.co.jp (thunder [133.139.211.198]) by ricohigw.ricoh.co.jp (8.9.3+3.2W/3.7W) with ESMTP id RAA27930; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 17:20:19 +0900 (JST) Received: from newton.toda.ricoh.co.jp (newton.toda.ricoh.co.jp [133.139.60.10]) by thunder.ricoh.co.jp (8.9.3+3.2W/3.7W) with SMTP id RAA21763; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 17:20:17 +0900 (JST) Received: from localhost (maple.toda.ricoh.co.jp [133.139.60.73]) by newton.toda.ricoh.co.jp (8.6.11+2.4W/3.3W9-1.0S8sun) with ESMTP id RAA05047; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 17:20:12 +0900 To: ietf-fax@imc.org Cc: Claudio.Allocchio@elettra.trieste.it, hsilbiger@ieee.org, alan@mgcs.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: IETF-FAX WG: Input to November SG16 meeting In-Reply-To: <20001013164130X.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> References: <20001005094247X.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> <20001013164130X.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> X-Mailer: Mew version 1.94.2 on Emacs 20.4 / Mule 4.1 (AOI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20001013172318P.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 17:23:18 +0900 (JST) From: Hiroshi Tamura X-Dispatcher: imput version 20000228(IM140) Lines: 68 Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Folks, Excuse me, I forgot to say the cover pages of the contributions to ITU-T in the last mail. They explain contents of RFC 2879 and RFC 2880 very briefly. They are below. I do not think there are any problems. Thank you, Graham, again. Next week, I will ask ISOC VP and ADs for the confirmation. ------------------------------------ RFC 2879 ------------------------------------ Abstract The attached memo, RFC 2879, describes the media content feature schema for Internet fax. It defines a profile of the media feature registration mechanisms, for use in performing capability identification between extended Internet fax systems. Introduction The remainder of this document contains the text of the standard-track document RFC 2879, which defines a profile of the media feature registration mechanisms for use in performing capability identification between extended Internet fax systems. It is a minor revision of, and replaces, the previous document RFC 2531. There are two substantive changes: the values for feature tag 'image-file-structure' have been changed to more accurately reflect what is conveyed by that tag, and a new tag 'color-illuminant' has been introduced. Other changes are clarifications to the text and improvements to the examples. A fuller list of the revisions can be found in appendix C of the document. ------------------------------------ For RFC 2880 ------------------------------------ Abstract The attached memo describes how to map Group 3 fax capability identification bits, described in ITU T.30, into the Internet fax feature schema described in "Content feature schema for Internet fax". This is a companion to the fax feature schema document, which itself defines a profile of the media feature registration mechanisms, for use in performing capability identification between extended Internet fax systems. Introduction The remainder of this document contains the text of the informational document RFC 2880, which describes a mapping between T.30 DIS capability bits and media feature expressions as used by Extended Internet fax. The document does not contain any normative material, but rather describes how to the standards relating to media feature description for Internet fax can be used when interworking with Group 3 facsimile, per ITU-T.30, etc. -------------------------------- Regards, -- Hiroshi Tamura, Co-chair of IETF-FAX WG From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Sat Oct 14 23:32:48 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id XAA09277 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 23:32:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA10629 for ietf-fax-bks; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 19:27:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stepabzexg.stepahead.org.uk (ns.stepahead.org.uk [62.172.104.226]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA10611; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 19:26:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 19:26:45 -0700 (PDT) From: paul@bourgeat.fr Message-Id: <200010150226.TAA10611@ns.secondary.com> Received: from alli (ip62.schiller-park9.il.pub-ip.psi.net [38.31.126.62]) by stepabzexg.stepahead.org.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2232.9) id 4F0JMSFZ; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 03:34:29 +0100 To: paul@bourgeat.fr Subject: Truly Earn $50,000 in 90 Days! It Works! Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Dear Friend, This really works! Have the faith, don't miss this opportunity, get involved also, and it will work for you as it does for us!!!!! Thank you for your time and interest. This email contains the ENTIRE PLAN of how YOU can make $50,000 or more in the next 90 days simply sending email! Seem impossible? Just read on and see how easy this is.... Due to the popularity of this letter on the Internet, a major nightly news program recently devoted an entire show to the investigation of the program described below to see if it really can make people money. The show also investigated whether or not the program was legal. Their findings proved that there are absolutely no laws prohibiting the participation in the program. This has helped to show people that this is a simple, harmless and fun way to make some extra money at home. The results have been truly remarkable. So many people are participating that those involved are doing much better than ever before. Since everyone makes more as more people try it out, its been very exciting. You will understand once you try it yourself! ********* THE ENTIRE PLAN IS HERE BELOW ********* *** Print This Now For Future Reference *** $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ If you would like to make at least $50,000 in less than 90 days! Please read this program...THEN READ IT AGAIN!! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ THIS IS A LEGITIMATE, LEGAL, MONEY MAKING OPPORTUNITY!! It does NOT require you to come into contact with people or make or take any telephone calls. Just follow the instructions, and you will make money. This simplified e-mail marketing program works perfectly 100% EVERY TIME! E-mail is the sales tool of the future. Take advantage of this virtually free method of advertising NOW!!! The longer you wait, the more people will be doing business using email. Get your piece of this action!!! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Hello - My name is Johnathon Rourke, I'm from Rhode Island. The enclosed information is something I almost let slip through my fingers. Fortunately, sometime later I re-read everything and gave some thought and study to it. Two years ago, the corporation I worked for the past twelve years down-sized and my position was eliminated. After unproductive job interviews, I decided to open my own business. Over the past year, I incurred many unforeseen financial problems. I owed my family, friends and creditors over $35,000. The economy was taking a toll on my business and I just couldn't seem to make ends meet. I had to refinance and borrow against my home to support my family and struggling business. AT THAT MOMENT something significant happened in my life. I am writing to share the experience in hopes that this could change your life FOREVER. FINANCIALLY$$$!!! In mid December, I received this program in my e-mail. Six months prior to receiving this program I had been sending away for information on various business opportunities. All of the programs I received, in my opinion, were not cost effective. They were either too difficult for me to comprehend or the initial investment was too much for me to risk to see if they would work. But as I was saying, in December of 1997 I received this program. I didn't send for it, or ask for it, they just got my name off a mailing list. THANK GOODNESS FOR THAT!!! After reading it several times, to make sure I was reading it correctly. I couldn't believe my eyes! Here was a MONEY MAKING MACHINE I could start immediately without any debt. Like most of you I was still a little skeptical and a little worried about the legal aspects of it all. So I checked it out with the U.S. Post Office (1-800-725-2161 24-hrs) and they confirmed that it is indeed legal! After determining the program was LEGAL I decided "WHY NOT!?!??" Initially I sent out 10,000 e-mails. It cost me about $15 for my time on-line. The great thing about e-mail is that I don't need any for printing to send out the program, and because I also send the product (reports) by e-mail, my only expense is my time. In less than one week, I was starting to receive orders for REPORT #1. By January 13, I had received 26 orders for REPORT #1. Your goal is to "RECEIVE at least 20 ORDERS FOR REPORT #1 WITHIN 2 WEEKS. IF YOU DON'T, SEND OUT MORE PROGRAMS UNTIL YOU DO. My first step in making $50,000 in 90 days was done. By January 30, I had received 196 orders for REPORT #2. Your goal is to "RECEIVE AT LEAST 100+ ORDERS FOR REPORT #2 WITHIN 2 WEEKS. IF NOT, SEND OUT MORE PROGRAMS UNTIL YOU DO. ONCE YOU HAVE 100 ORDERS, THE REST IS EASY, RELAX, YOU WILL MAKE YOUR $50,000 GOAL." Well, I had 196 orders for REPORT #2. 96 more than I needed. So I sat back and relaxed. By March 1, of my e-mailing of 10,000, received $58,000 with more coming in every day. I paid off ALL my debts and bought a much needed new car! Please take your time to read this plan, IT WILL CHANGE YOUR LIFE FOREVER$!!! Remember, it won't work if you don't try it. This program does work, but you must follow it EXACTLY! Especially the rules of not trying to place your name in a different place. It won't work and you'll lose out on a lot of money! In order for this program to work, you must meet your goal of 20+ orders for REPORT #1, and 100+ orders for REPORT #2 and you will make $50,000 or more in 90 days. I AM LIVING PROOF THAT IT WORKS!!! If you choose not to participate in this program, I am sorry. It really is a great opportunity with little cost or risk to you. If you choose to participate, follow the program and you will be on your way to financial security. If you are a fellow business owner and are in financial trouble like I was, or you want to start your own business, consider this a sign. I DID! $$ Sincerely, Johnathon Rourke ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A PERSONAL NOTE FROM THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS PROGRAM: By the time you have read the enclosed program and reports, you should have concluded that such a program, and one that is legal, could not have been created by an amateur. Let me tell you a little about myself. I had a profitable business for 10 years. Then in 1979 my business began falling off. I was doing the same things that were previously successful for me, but it wasn't working. Finally, I figured it out. It wasn't me, it was the economy. Inflation and recession had replaced the stable economy that had been with us since 1945. I don't have to tell you what happened to the unemployment rate... because many of you know from first hand experience. There were more failures and bankruptcies than ever before. The middle class was vanishing. Those who knew what they were doing invested wisely and moved up. Those who did not, including those who never had anything to save or invest, were moving down into the ranks of the poor. As the saying goes, "THE RICH GET RICHER AND THE POOR GET POORER." The traditional methods of making money will never allow you to"move up" or "get rich", inflation will see to that. You have just received information that can give you financial freedom for the rest of your life, with "NO RISK" and "JUST A LITTLE BIT OF EFFORT." You can make more money in the next few months than you have ever imagined. I should also point out that I will not see a penny of this money, nor anyone else who has provided a testimonial for this program. I have retired from the program after sending thousands and thousands of programs. Follow the program EXACTLY AS INSTRUCTED. Do not change it in any way. It works exceedingly well as it is now. Remember to e-mail a copy of this exciting report to everyone you can think of. One of the people you send this to may send out 50,000...and your name will be on everyone of them! Remember though, the more you send out, the more potential customers you will reach. So my friend, I have given you the ideas, information, materials and opportunity to become financially independent. IT IS UP TO YOU!! NOW DO IT!! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Before you delete this program from your in box, as I almost did, take a little time to read it and REALLY THINK ABOUT IT. Get a pencil and figure out what could happen when YOU participate. Figure out the worst possible response and no matter how you calculate it, you will still make a lot of money! You will definitely get back what you invested. Any doubts you have will vanish when your first orders come in. $$$ IT WORKS!!! $$$ Jody Jacobs Richmond, VA ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ HERE'S HOW THIS AMAZING PROGRAM WILL MAKE YOU THOUSANDS OF DOLLAR$$$$!!!! This method of raising capital REALLY WORKS 100% EVERY TIME. I am sure that you could use up to $50,000 or more in the next 90 days. before you say "BULL... ", please read this program carefully. This is not a chain letter, but a perfectly legal money making business. As with all multi-level businesses, we build our business by recruiting new partners and selling our products. Every state in the USA allows you to recruit new multi-level business partners, and we sell and deliver a product for EVERY dollar received. YOUR ORDERS COME BY MAIL AND ARE FILLED BY E-MAIL, so you are not involved in personal selling. You do it privately in your own home, store or office. This is the EASIEST marketing plan anywhere! It is simply order filling by email! ******************************************************************* The product is informational and instructional material, keys to the secrets for everyone on how to open the doors to the magic world of E-COMMERCE , the information highway, the wave of the future ! PLAN SUMMARY: (1) You order the 4 reports listed below ($5 each) They come to you by email. (2) Save a copy of this entire letter and put your name after Report #1 and move the other names down. (3) Via the internet, access Yahoo.com or any of the other major search engines to locate hundreds of bulk email service companies (search for "bulk email") and have them send 25,000 - 50,000 emails for you about $49+) (4) Orders will come to you by postal mail - simply email them the Report they ordered. Let me ask you - isn't this about as easy as it gets? ******************************************************************* By the way there are over 50 MILLION email addresses with millions more joining the internet each year so don't worry about "running out" or "saturation". People are used to seeing and hearing the same advertisements every day on radio/TV. How many times have you received the same pizza flyers on your door? Then one day you are hungry for pizza and you order one. Same thing with this letter. I received this letter many times - then one day I decided it was time to try it. ******************************************************************* YOU CAN START TODAY - JUST DO THESE EASY STEPS: STEP #1. ORDER THE FOUR REPORTS Order the four reports shown on the list below (you can't sell them if you don't order them). -- For each report, send $5.00 CASH, the NAME & NUMBER OF THE REPORT YOU ARE ORDERING, YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS, and YOUR NAME & RETURN ADDRESS (in case of a problem) to the person whose name appears on the list next to the report. MAKE SURE YOUR RETURN ADDRESS IS ON YOUR ENVELOPE IN CASE OF ANY MAIL PROBLEMS! Within a few days you will receive, by e-mail, each of the four reports. Save them on your computer so you can send them to the 1,000's of people who will order them from you. STEP #2. ADD YOUR MAILING ADDRESS TO THIS LETTER a.Look below for the listing of the four reports. b.After you've ordered the four reports, delete the name and address under REPORT #4. This person has made it through the cycle. c.Move the name and address under REPORT #3 down to REPORT #4. d.Move the name and address under REPORT #2 down to REPORT #3. e.Move the name and address under REPORT #1 down to REPORT #2. f.Insert your name/address in the REPORT #1 position. Please make sure you COPY ALL INFORMATION, every name and address, ACCURATELY! STEP #3. Take this entire letter, including the modified list of names, and save it to your computer. Make NO changes to these instructions. Now you are ready to use this entire email to send by email to prospects. Report #1 will tell you how to download bulk email software and email addresses so you can send it out to thousands of people while you sleep! Remember that 50,000+ new people are joining the internet every month. Your cost to participate in this is practically nothing (surely you can afford $20 and initial bulk mailing cost). You obviously already have a computer and an Internet connection and e-mail is FREE! There are two primary methods of building your downline: METHOD #1: SENDING BULK E-MAIL Let's say that you decide to start small, just to see how it goes, and we'll assume you and all those involved email out only 2,000 programs each. Let's also assume that the mailing receives a 0.5% response. The response could be much better. Also, many people will email outhundreds of thousands of programs instead of 2,000 (Why stop at 2000?). But continuing with this example, you send out only 2,000 programs. With a 0.5% response, that is only 10 orders for REPORT #1. Those 10 people respond by sending out 2,000 programs each for a total of 20,000. Out of those 0.5%, 100 people respond and order REPORT #2. Those 100 mail out 2,000 programs each for a total of 200,000. The 0.5% response to that is 1,000 orders for REPORT #3. Those 1,000 send out 2,000 programs each for a 2,000,000 total. The 0.5% response to that is 10,000 orders for REPORT #4. That's 10,000 $5 bills for you. CASH!!! Your total income in this example is $50 + $500 + $5,000 + $50,000 for a total of $55,550!!! REMEMBER FRIEND, THIS IS ASSUMING 1,990 OUT OF THE 2,000 PEOPLE YOU MAIL TO WILL DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AND TRASH THIS PROGRAM! DARE TO THINK FOR A MOMENT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF EVERYONE, OR HALF SENT OUT 100,000 PROGRAMS INSTEAD OF 2,000. Believe me, many people will do just that, and more! METHOD #2 - PLACING FREE ADS ON THE INTERNET Advertising on the internet is very, very inexpensive, and there are HUNDREDS of FREE places to advertise. Let's say you decide to start small just to see how well it works. Assume your goal is to get ONLY 10 people to participate on your first level. (Placing a lot of FREE ads on the Internet will EASILY get a larger response.) Also assume that everyone else in YOUR ORGANIZATION gets ONLY 10 downline members. Look how this small number accumulates to achieve the STAGGERING results below: 1st level--your first 10 send you $5...........................................................$50 2nd level--10 members from those 10 ($5 x 100).............$500 3rd level--10 members from those 100 ($5 x 1,000)........$5,000 4th level--10 members from those 1,000 ($5 x 10,000)..$50,000 $$$$$$ THIS TOTALS ----------$55,550 $$$$$$ AMAZING ISN'T IT? Remember friends, this assumes that the people who participate only recruit 10 people each. Think for a moment what would happen if they got 20 people to participate! Most people get 100's of participants and many will continue to work this program, sending out programs WITH YOUR NAME ON THEM for years! THINK ABOUT IT! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ People are going to get emails about this plan from you or somebody else and many will work this plan - the question is - Don't you want your name to be on the emails they will send out? * * * DON'T MISS OUT!!! * * * JUST TRY IT ONCE!!! * * * * * SEE WHAT HAPPENS!!! *** YOU'LL BE AMAZED!!!* * ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ALWAYS PROVIDE SAME-DAY SERVICE ON ALL ORDERS! This will guarantee that the e-mail THEY send out with YOUR name and address on it will be prompt because they can't advertise until they receive the report! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ GET STARTED TODAY: PLACE YOUR ORDER FOR THE FOUR REPORTS NOW. Notes: -- ALWAYS SEND $5 CASH (U.S. CURRENCY) FOR EACH REPORT. CHECKS NOT ACCEPTED. Make sure the cash is concealed by wrapping it in two sheets of paper. On one of those sheets of paper write: (a) the number & name of the report you are ordering (b) your e-mail address, and (c) your name & postal address. REPORT #1 "The Insider's Guide to Advertising for Free on the Internet" ORDER REPORT #1 FROM: John Stitzel 3121 Benninghofen Ave. Hamilton, Ohio 45015 REPORT #2 "The Insider's Guide to Sending Bulk E-mail on the Internet" ORDER REPORT #2 FROM: Lorraine Wride 2350 E. Brower St. Simi Valley, CA 93065 REPORT #3 "The Secrets to Multilevel Marketing on the Internet" ORDER REPORT #3 FROM: Dan Rutherford 1215 Linden Ave. Glendale, CA 91201 REPORT #4 "How to become a Millionaire utilizing the Power of Multilevel Marketing and the Internet" ORDER REPORT #4 FROM: Tina Marie Mitchell 3018 Cottage Grove Court Orlando, FL 32822 ******* TIPS FOR SUCCESS ******* TREAT THIS AS YOUR BUSINESS! Be prompt, professional, and follow the directions accurately. -- Send for the four reports IMMEDIATELY so you will have them when the orders start coming in because: When you receive a $5 order, you MUST send out the requested product/report. It is required for this to be a legal business and they need the reports to send out their letters (with your name on them!) -- ALWAYS PROVIDE SAME-DAY SERVICE ON THE ORDERS YOU RECEIVE. -- Be patient and persistent with this program - If you follow the instructions exactly - results WILL FOLLOW. $$$$ ******* YOUR SUCCESS GUIDELINES ******* Follow these guidelines to guarantee your success: If you don't receive 20 orders for REPORT #1 within two weeks, continue advertising or sending e-mails until you do. Then, a couple of weeks later you should receive at least 100 orders for REPORT#2. If you don't, continue advertising or sending e-mails until you do. Once you have received 100 or more orders for REPORT #2, YOU CAN RELAX, because the system is already working for you, and the cash will continue to roll in! THIS IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER: Every time your name is moved down on the list, you are placed in front of a DIFFERENT report. You can KEEP TRACK of your PROGRESS by watching which report people are ordering from you. To generate more income, simply send another batch of e-mails or continue placing ads and start the whole process again! There is no limit to the income you will generate from this business! Before you make your decision as to whether or not you participate in this program. Please answer one question. ARE YOU HAPPY WITH YOUR PRESENT INCOME OR JOB? If the answer is no, then please look at the following facts about this super simple MLM program: 1. NO face to face selling, NO meetings, NO inventory! NO Telephone calls, NO big cost to start!, NOthing to learn, NO skills needed! (Surely you know how to send email?) 2. No equipment to buy - you already have a computer and internet connection - so you have everything you need to fill orders! 3. You are selling a product which does NOT COST ANYTHING TO PRODUCE OR SHIP! (Emailing copies of the reports is FREE!) 4. All of your customers pay you in CA$H! This program will change your LIFE FOREVER!! Look at the potential for you to be able to quit your job and live a life of luxury you could only dream about! Imagine getting out of debt and buying the car and home of your dreams and being able to work a super-high paying leisurely easy business from home! $$$ FINALLY MAKE SOME DREAMS COME TRUE! $$$ ACT NOW! Take your first step toward achieving financial independence. Order the reports and follow the program outlined above-- SUCCESS will be your reward. Thank you for your time and consideration. PLEASE NOTE: If you need help with starting a business, registering a business name, learning how income tax is handled, etc., contact your local office of the Small Business Administration (a Federal Agency) 1-800-827-5722 for free help and answers to questions. Also, the Internal Revenue Service offers free help via telephone and free seminars about business tax reuirements. Your earnings are highly dependent on your activities and advertising. The information contained on this site and in the report constitutes no guarantees stated nor implied. In the event that it is determined that this site or report constitutes a guarantee of any kind, that guarantee is now void. The earnings amounts listed on this site and in the report are estimates only. If you have any questions of the legality of this program, contact the Office of Associate Director for Marketing Practices, Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Consumer Protection in Washington, DC. ================================================ Under Bill s.1618 TITLE III passed by the 105th US Congress this letter cannot be considered spam as long as the sender includes contact information and a method of removal. This is a one time e-mail transmission. No request for removal is necessary. From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Sun Oct 15 13:55:35 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA09440 for ; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 13:55:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA01181 for ietf-fax-bks; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 09:43:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pawouk.none.cz ([194.228.3.5]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA01177 for ; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 09:43:31 -0700 (PDT) From: sst@bemberg.de Received: from oemcomputer [63.20.221.6] by pawouk.none.cz (SMTPD32-5.08) id AD5B12930126; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 17:46:03 +0000 To: sst@bemberg.de Subject: Earn $50,000 in 90 Days! It Really Works! It worked so well the first time, I'm doing it again! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=unknown-8bit Message-Id: <200010151847805.SM00159@oemcomputer> Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 18:48:09 +0000 Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Dear Friend, You can earn $50,000 or more in next the 90 days sending e-mail. Seem impossible? Read on for details; is there a catch; NO, there is no catch, just send your emails and be on your way to financial freedom. "AS SEEN ON NATIONAL TELEVISION" Thank you for your time and Interest. This is the letter you've been reading about in the news lately. Due to the popularity of this letter on the Internet, a major nightly news program recently devoted an entire show to the investigation of the program described below to see, if it really can make people money. The show also investigated whether or not the program was legal. Their findings proved once and for all that there are, absolutely no laws prohibiting the participation in the program. This has helped to show people that this is a simple, harmless and fun way to make some extra money at home. The results of this show have been truly remarkable. So many people are participating that those involved are doing, much better than ever before. Since everyone makes more as more people try it out, its been very exciting to be a part of lately. You will understand once you experience it. "HERE IT IS BELOW" ================================================ *** Print This Now For Future Reference *** The following income opportunity is one you may be interested in taking a look at. It can be started with VERY LITTLE investment and the income return is TREMENDOUS!!! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ If you would like to make at least $50,000 in less than 90 days! Please read the enclosed program...THEN READ IT AGAIN!!! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ THIS IS A LEGITIMATE, LEGAL, MONEY MAKING OPPORTUNITY. It does not require you to come into contact with people, do any hard work, and best of all, you never have to leave the house except to get the mail. If you believe that someday you'll get that big break that you've been waiting for, THIS IS IT! Simply follow the instructions, and your dreams will come true. This Multi-level e-mail order marketing program works perfectly 100% EVERY TIME. E-mail is the sales tool of the future. Take advantage of this non-commercialized method of advertising NOW! The longer you wait, the more people will be doing business using e-mail. Get your piece of this action !!! MULTI-LEVEL MARKETING (MLM) has finally gained respectability. It is being taught in the Harvard Business School, and both Stanford Research and the Wall Street Journal have stated that between 50% and 65% of all goods and services will be sold through multi-level methods by the mid to late 1990's. This is a Multi-Billion Dollar industry and of the 500,000 millionaires in the U.S., 20% (100,000) made their fortune in the last several years in MLM. Moreover, statistics show 45people become millionaires everyday through Multi-Level Marketing. You may have heard this story before, but over the summer Donald Trump made an appearance on the David Letterman show. Dave asked him what he would do if he lost everything and had to start over from scratch. Without hesitating, Trump said he would find a good network marketing company and get to work. The audience started to hoot and boo him. He looked out at the audience and dead-panned his response "That's why I'm sitting up here and you are all sitting out there!" With network marketing you have two sources of income. Direct commissions from sales you make yourself and commissions from sales made by people you introduce to the business. Residual income is the secret of the wealthy. It means investing time or money once and getting paid again and again and again. In network marketing, it also means getting paid for the work of others. The enclosed information is something I almost let slip through my fingers. Fortunately, sometime later I re-read everything and gave some thought and study to it. My name is Jonathan Rourke. Two years ago, the corporation I worked at for the past twelve years down-sized and my position was eliminated. After unproductive job interviews, I decided to open my own business. Over the past year, I incurred many unforeseen financial problems. I owed my family, friends and creditors over $35,000. The economy was taking a toll on my business and I just couldn't seem to make ends meet. I had to refinance and borrow against my home to support my family and struggling business. AT THAT MOMENT something significant happened in my life and I am writing to share the experience in hopes that this will change your life FOREVER FINANCIALLY!!! In mid December, I received this program via e-mail. Six month's prior to receiving this program, I had been sending away for information on various business opportunities. All of the programs I received, in my opinion, were not cost effective. They were either too difficult for me to comprehend or the initial investment was too much for me to risk to see if they would work or not. One claimed that I would make a million dollars in one year... it didn't tell me I'd have to write a book to make it! But like I was saying, in December of 1997 I received this program. I didn't send for it, or ask for it, they just got my name off a mailing list. THANK GOODNESS FOR THAT !!! After reading it several times, to make sure I was reading it correctly, I couldn't believe my eyes. Here was a MONEY MAKING PHENOMENON. I could invest as much as I wanted to start, without putting me further into debt. After I got a pencil and paper and figured it out, I would at least get my money back. But like most of you I was still a little skeptical and a little worried about the legal aspects of it all. So I checked it out with the U.S. Post Office (1-800-725-2161 24-hrs) and they confirmed that it is indeed legal! After determining the program was LEGAL and NOT A CHAIN LETTER, I decided "WHY NOT." Initially I sent out 10,000 e-mails. It cost me about $15 for my time on-line. The great thing about e-mail is that I don't need any money for printing to send out the program, and because all of my orders are fulfilled via e-mail, the only expense is my time. I am telling you like it is, I hope it doesn't turn you off, but I promised myself that I would not "rip-off" anyone, no matter how much money it cost me. In less than one week, I was starting to receive orders for REPORT #1. By January 13, I had received 26 orders for REPORT #1. Your goal is to "RECEIVE at least 20 ORDERS FOR REPORT #1 WITHIN 2 WEEKS. IF YOU DON'T, SEND OUT MORE PROGRAMS UNTIL YOU DO!" My first step in making $50,000 in 90 days was done. By January 30, I had received 196 orders for REPORT #2. Your goal is to "RECEIVE AT LEAST 100+ ORDERS FOR REPORT #2 WITHIN 2 WEEKS. IF NOT, SEND OUT MORE PROGRAMS UNTIL YOU DO. ONCE YOU HAVE 100 ORDERS, THE REST IS EASY, RELAX, YOU WILL MAKE YOUR $50,000 GOAL." Well, I had 196 orders for REPORT #2, 96 more than I needed. So I sat back and relaxed. By March 1, of my e-mailing of 10,000, I received $58,000 with more coming in every day. I paid off ALL my debts and bought a much needed new car. Please take time to read the attached program, IT WILL CHANGE YOUR LIFE FOREVER!!! Remember, it won't work if you don't try it. This program does work, but you must follow it EXACTLY! Especially the rules of not trying to place your name in a different place. It won't work, you'll lose out on a lot of money! In order for this program to work, you must meet your goal of 20+ orders for REPORT #1, and 100+ orders for REPORT #2 and you will make $50,000 or more in 90 days. I AM LIVING PROOF THAT IT WORKS!!! If you choose not to participate in this program, I am sorry. It really is a great opportunity with little cost or risk to you. If you choose to participate, follow the program and you will be on your way to financial security. If you are a fellow business owner and are if financial trouble like I was, or you want to start your own business, consider this a sign. I DID! Sincerely, Jonathan Rourke PS Do you have any idea what 11,700 $5 bills ($58,000) look like piled up on a kitchen table? IT'S AWESOME! A PERSONAL NOTE FROM THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS PROGRAM: By the time you have read the enclosed program and reports, you should have concluded that such a program, and one that is legal, could not have been created by an amateur. Let me tell you a little about myself. I had a profitable business for 10 years. Then in 1979 my business began falling off. I was doing the same things that were previously successful for me, but it wasn't working. Finally, I figured it out. It wasn't me, it was the economy. Inflation and recession had replaced the stable economy that had been with us since 1945. I don't have to tell you what happened to the unemployment rate...because many of you know from first hand experience. There were more failures and bankruptcies than ever before. The middle class was vanishing. Those who knew what they were doing invested wisely and moved up. Those who did not, including those who never had anything to save or invest, were moving down into the ranks of the poor. As the saying goes, "THE RICH GET RICHER AND THE POOR GET POORER." The traditional methods of making money will never allow you to "move up" or "get rich", inflation will see to that. You have just received information that can give you financial freedom for the rest of your life, with "NO RISK" and "JUST A LITTLE BIT OF EFFORT." You can make more money in the next few months than you have ever imagined. I should also point out that I will not see a penny of this money, nor anyone else who has provided a testimonial for this program. I have already made over 4 MILLION DOLLARS! I have retired from the program after sending out over 16,000 programs. Now I have several offices that make this and several other programs here and over seas. Follow the program EXACTLY AS INSTRUCTED. Do not change it in any way. It works exceedingly well as it is now. Remember to e-mail a copy of this exciting report to everyone you can think of. One of the people you send this to may send out 50,000...and your name will be on everyone of them! Remember though, the more you send out the more potential customers you will reach. So my friend, I have given you the ideas, information, materials and opportunity to become financially independent, IT IS UP TO YOU NOW! ************************************************************ "THINK ABOUT IT" Before you delete this program from your mailbox, as I almost did, take a little time to read it and REALLY THINK ABOUT IT. Get a pencil and figure out what could happen when YOU participate. Figure out the worst possible response and no matter how you calculate it, you will still make a lot of money! You will definitely get back what you invested. Any doubts you have will vanish when your first orders come in. IT WORKS! Jody Jacobs, Richmond, VA ************************************************************ HERE'S HOW THIS AMAZING PROGRAM WILL MAKE YOU THOUSANDS OF DOLLAR$ INSTRUCTIONS: This method of raising capital REALLY WORKS 100% EVERY TIME. I am sure that you could use up to $50,000 or more in the next 90 days. Before you say "BULL... ", please read this program carefully. This is not a chain letter, but a perfectly legal money making opportunity. Basically, this is what you do: As with all multi-level businesses, we build our business by recruiting new partners and selling our products. Every state in the USA allows you to recruit new multi-level business partners, and we offer a product for EVERY dollar sent. YOUR ORDERS COME BY MAIL AND ARE FILLED BY E-MAIL, so you are not involved in personal selling. You do it privately in your own home, store or office. This is the GREATEST Multi-Level Mail Order Marketing anywhere: This is what you MUST do: 1. Order all 4 reports shown on the list below (you can't sell them if you don't order them). * For each report, send $5.00 CASH, the NAME & NUMBER OF THE REPORT YOU ARE ORDERING, YOUR E-MAIL AND ADDRESS, YOUR NAME & RETURN ADDRESS (in case of a problem) and to the person whose name appears on the list next to the report. MAKE SURE YOUR RETURN ADDRESS IS ON YOUR ENVELOPE IN CASE OF ANY MAIL PROBLEMS! * When you place your order, make sure you order each of the four reports. You will need all four reports so that you can save them on your computer and resell them. * Within a few days you will receive, via e-mail, each of the four reports. Save them on your computer so they will be accessible for you to send to the 1,000's of people who will order them from you. 2. IMPORTANT-- DO NOT alter the names of the people who are listed next to each report, or their sequence on the list, in any way other than is instructed below in steps "a" through "f" or you will lose out on the majority of your profits. Once you understand the way this works, you'll also see how it doesn't work if you change it. Remember, this method has been tested, and if you alter it, it will not work. a. Look below for the listing of available reports. b. After you've ordered the four reports, take this Advertisement and remove the name and address under REPORT #4. This person has made it through the cycle and is no doubt counting their $50,000! c. Move the name and address under REPORT #3 down to REPORT #4. d. Move the name and address under REPORT #2 down to REPORT #3. e. Move the name and address under REPORT #1 down to REPORT #2. f. Insert your name/address in the REPORT #1 position. Please make sure you copy every name and address ACCURATELY! 3. Take this entire letter, including the modified list of names, and save it to your computer. Make NO changes to the Instruction portion of this letter. Your cost to participate in this is practically nothing (surely you can afford $20). You obviously already have an Internet Connection and e-mail is FREE! To assist you with marketing your business on the internet, the 4 reports you purchase will provide you with invaluable marketing information which includes how to send bulk e-mails, where to find thousands of free classified ads and much, much more. There are two primary methods of building your downline: METHOD #1: SENDING BULK E-MAIL Let's say that you decide to start small, just to see how it goes, and we'll assume you and all those involved send out only 2,000 programs each. Let's also assume that the mailing receives a 0.5% response. Using a good list the response could be much better. Also, many people will send out hundreds of thousands of programs instead of 2,000. But continuing with this example, you send out only 2,000 programs. With a 0.5% response, that is only 10 orders for REPORT #1. Those 10 people respond by sending out 2,000 programs each for a total of 20,000. Out of those 0.5%, 100 people respond and order REPORT #2. Those 100 mail out 2,000 programs each for a total of 200,000. The 0.5% response to that is 1,000 orders for REPORT #3. Those 1,000 send out 2,000 programs each for a 2,000,000 total. The 0.5% response to that is 10,000 orders for REPORT #4. That's 10,000 $5 bills for you. CASH!!! Your total income in this example is $50 + $500 + $5,000+ $50,000 for a total of $55,550!!! REMEMBER FRIEND, THIS IS ASSUMING 1,990 OUT OF THE 2,000 PEOPLE YOU MAIL TO WILL DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AND TRASH THIS PROGRAM! DARE TO THINK FOR A MOMENT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF EVERYONE, OR HALF SENT OUT 100,000 PROGRAMS INSTEAD OF 2,000. Believe me, many people will do just that, and more! By the way, your cost to participate in this is practically nothing. You obviously already have an internet connection and e-mail is FREE !!! REPORT #2 will show you the best methods for bulk e-mailing, tell you where to obtain free bulk e-mail software and where to obtain e-mail lists. METHOD #2 - PLACING FREE ADS ON THE INTERNET 1. Advertising on the 'Net is very, very inexpensive, and there are HUNDREDS of FREE places to advertise. Let's say you decide to start small just to see how well it works. Assume your goal is to get ONLY 10 people to participate on your first level. (Placing a lot of FREE ads on the internet will EASILY get a larger response.) Also assume that everyone else in YOUR ORGANIZATION gets ONLY 10 downline members. Follow this example to achieve the STAGGERING results below: 1st level-your 10 members with $5.........$50 2nd level-10 members from those 10 ($5 x 100).......$500 3rd level-10 members from those 100 ($5 x 1,000) $5,000 4th level-10 members from those 1,000 ($5 x 10k) $50,000 THIS TOTALS ---------------------------$55,550 Remember friends, this assumes that the people who participate only recruit 10 people each. Think for a moment what would happen if they got 20 people to participate! Most people get 100's of participants! THINK ABOUT IT! For every $5.00 you receive, all you must do is e-mail them the report they ordered. THAT'S IT! ALWAYS PROVIDE SAME-DAY SERVICE ON ALL ORDERS! This will guarantee that the e-mail THEY send out, with YOUR name and address on it, will be prompt because they can't advertise until they receive the report! ------------------------------------------ AVAILABLE REPORTS ------------------------------------------ *** Order Each REPORT by NUMBER and NAME *** Notes: - ALWAYS SEND $5 CASH (U.S. CURRENCY) FOR EACH REPORT CHEQUES NOT ACCEPTED - ALWAYS SEND YOUR ORDER VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL - Make sure the cash is concealed by wrapping it in at least two sheets of paper (IF NOT MORE SO THAT THE BILL CAN'T BE SEEN AGAINST LIGHT) - On one of those sheets of paper, include: (a) the number & name of the report you are ordering, (b) your e-mail address, and (c) your name & postal address (as return address in case the post office encounters problems). PLACE YOUR ORDER FOR THESE REPORTS NOW: ______________________________________________________ REPORT #1 "The Insider's Guide to Advertising for Free on the Internet" ORDER REPORT #1 FROM: Doug Teasdale 619 Hamilton unit C Costa Mesa, CA 92627 ______________________________________________________ REPORT #2 "The Insider's Guide to Sending Bulk E-mail on the Internet" ORDER REPORT #2 FROM: C.R. Kneeland %P.O. Box 94 Prather, CA 93651 ______________________________________________________ REPORT #3 "The Secrets to Multilevel Marketing on the Internet" ORDER REPORT #3 FROM: David Robinson 43000 W Nine Mile Rd Novi, MI 48375 ______________________________________________________ REPORT #4 "How to become a Millionaire utilizing the Power of Multilevel Marketing and the Internet" ORDER REPORT #4 FROM: Sam Laan Box 25362,395 Wellington Rd South London, ON Canada N6C 6B1 ______________________________________________________ About 50,000 new people get online every month! ******* TIPS FOR SUCCESS ******* * TREAT THIS AS YOUR BUSINESS! Be prompt, professional, and follow the directions accurately. * Send for the four reports IMMEDIATELY so you will have them when the orders start coming in because: When you receive a $5 order, you MUST send out the requested product/report. * ALWAYS PROVIDE SAME-DAY SERVICE ON THE ORDERS YOU RECEIVE. * Be patient and persistent with this program. If you follow the instructions exactly, your results WILL BE SUCCESSFUL! * ABOVE ALL, HAVE FAITH IN YOURSELF AND KNOW YOU WILL SUCCEED! ******* YOUR SUCCESS GUIDELINES ******* Follow these guidelines to guarantee your success: If you don't receive 20 orders for REPORT #1 within two weeks, continue advertising or sending e-mails until you do. Then, a couple of weeks later you should receive at least 100 orders for REPORT#2. If you don't, continue advertising or sending e-mails until you do. Once you have received 100 or more orders for REPORT #2, YOU CAN RELAX, because the system is already working for you, and the cash will continue to roll in! THIS IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER: Every time your name is moved down on the list, you are placed in front of a DIFFERENT report. You can KEEP TRACK of your PROGRESS by watching which report people are ordering from you. If you want to generate more income, send another batch of e-mails or continue placing ads and start the whole process again! There is no limit to the income you will generate from this business! Before you make your decision as to whether or not you participate in this program. Please answer one question..... DO YOU WANT TO CHANGE YOUR LIFE? If the answer is yes, please look at the following facts about this program: 1. YOU ARE SELLING A PRODUCT WHICH DOES NOT COST ANYTHING TO PRODUCE! 2. YOU ARE SELLING A PRODUCT WHICH DOES NOT COST ANYTHING TO SHIP! 3. YOU ARE SELLING A PRODUCT WHICH DOES NOT COST YOU ANYTHING TO ADVERTISE! 4. YOU ARE UTILIZING THE POWER OF THE INTERNET AND THE POWER OF MULTI-LEVEL MARKETING TO DISTRIBUTE YOUR PRODUCT ALL OVER THE WORLD! 5. YOUR ONLY EXPENSES OTHER THAN YOUR INITIAL $20 INVESTMENT IS YOUR TIME! 6. VIRTUALLY ALL OF THE INCOME YOU GENERATE FROM THIS PROGRAM IS PURE PROFIT! 7. THIS PROGRAM WILL CHANGE YOUR LIFE FOREVER. ******* T E S T I M O N I A L S ******* This program does work, but you must follow it EXACTLY! Especially the rule of not trying to place your name in a different position, it won't work and you'll lose a lot of potential income. I'm living proof that it works. It really is a great opportunity to make relatively easy money, with little cost to you. If you do choose to participate, follow the program exactly, and you'll be on your way to financial security. Steven Bardfield, Portland, OR ************************************************************ My name is Mitchell. My wife, Jody, and I live in Chicago, IL. I am a cost accountant with a major U.S. Corporation and I make pretty good money. When I received the program I grumbled to Jody about receiving "junk mail." I made fun of the whole thing, spouting my knowledge of the population and percentages involved. I "knew" it wouldn't work. Jody totally ignored my supposed intelligence and jumped in with both feet. I made merciless fun of her, and was ready to lay the old "I told you so" on her when the thing didn't work... well, the laugh was on me! Within two weeks she had received over 50 responses. Within 45 days she had received over $147,200 in $5 bills! I was shocked! I was sure that I had it all figured and that it wouldn't work. I AM a believer now. I have joined Jody in her "hobby." I did have seven more years until retirement, but I think of the "rat race" and it's not for me. We owe it all to MLM. Mitchell Wolf MD., Chicago, IL ************************************************************ The main reason for this letter is to convince you that this system is honest, lawful, extremely profitable, and is a way to get a large amount of money in a short time. I was approached several times before I checked this out. I joined just to see what one could expect in return for the minimal effort and money required. To my astonishment, I received $36,470.00 in the first 14 weeks, with money still coming in. Charles Morris, Esq. ************************************************************ Not being the gambling type, it took me several weeks to make up my mind to participate in this plan. But conservative that I am, I decided that the initial investment was so little that there was just no way that I wouldn't get enough orders to at least get my money back. Boy, was I surprised when I found my medium-size post office box crammed with orders! For awhile, it got so overloaded that I had to start picking up my mail at the window. I'll make more money this year than any 10 years of my life before. The nice thing about this deal is that it doesn't matter where people live. There simply isn't a better investment with a faster return. Paige Willis, Des Moines, IA ************************************************************ I had received this program before. I deleted it, but later I wondered if I shouldn't have given it a try. Of course, I had no idea who to contact to get another copy, so I had to wait until I was e-mailed another program, .11 months passed then it came...I didn't delete this one!...I made more than $41,000 on the first try!! Violet Wilson, Johnstown, PA *********************************************************** This is my third time to participate in this plan. We have quit our jobs, and will soon buy a home on the beach and live off the interest on our money. The only way on earth that this plan will work for you is if you do it. For your sake, and for your family's sake don't pass up this golden opportunity. Good luck and happy spending! Kerry Ford, Centerport, NY ************************************************************ ORDER YOUR REPORTS TODAY AND GET STARTED ON YOUR ROAD TO FINANCIAL FREEDOM! NOW IS THE TIME FOR YOUR TURN DECISIVE ACTION YIELDS POWERFUL RESULTS _______________________________________________________ FOR YOUR INFORMATION.... If you need help with starting a business, registering a business name, learning how income tax is handled, etc., contact your local office of the Small Business Administration (a Federal agency) 1-(800)827-5722 for free help and answers to questions. Also, the Internal Revenue Service offers free help via telephone and free seminars about business tax requirements. If you have any question of the legality of this letter contact the Office of Associate Director for Marketing Practices Federal Trade Commission Bureau of Consumer Protection in Washington DC. From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Mon Oct 16 01:15:40 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id BAA17181 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 01:15:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA12426 for ietf-fax-bks; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 21:35:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from PUSHING.ecexchange.com (admin.englishharbour.com [207.245.62.6] (may be forged)) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA12420; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 21:35:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EYEFX1 (196.40.42.250) by PUSHING.ecexchange.com (Worldmail 1.3.167); 16 Oct 2000 00:29:09 -0400 To: Email@ns.secondary.com, Address@ns.secondary.com, Owners@ns.secondary.com From: mmcdonald@123go.com Subject: Top 5 Web Sites Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 22:14:15 -0600 Message-Id: <36814.926566793983500.12815@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Top 5 Internet Sites

TOP 5 Internet Web Sites

1. $1000.00 Weekly Give Away, Gaming Newsletters, Bad Bets section, Chat, Handy Caper's, Sportsbooks, Online Casinos & more.http://www.top100gamingsites.com

 2. Computer Systems, Desktops, Notebooks, Mac, Still photo, Webcams, Accessories, Cameras Software, Memory, Storage, & more. http://shopper.cnet.com/

3.  Cracks, Patches, Free Software, Free MP3's, Free Movies, Learn how to hack, Underground webmasters Search Engine http://www.astalavista.box.sk
 
4.  Cheap Long Distance Calling Rates Cheapest International calling plans available, Pre Paid International Calling Cards and much more http://www.callmaster.com
 
5. Cool Flash Animated Sites, Free games, Make your own Music, Online Greeting Cards The Best Sites on the Net are Found at  http://www.shockwave.com
 From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Wed Oct 18 02:45:14 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id CAA12527 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 02:45:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA24653 for ietf-fax-bks; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 22:59:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.minolta-mil.com (mother2.minolta-mil.com [216.148.73.6]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA24647 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 22:59:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SMTP agent by mail gateway Tue, 17 Oct 2000 23:05:04 -0800 Received: from JohnPulera (gate.minolta-mil.com [192.148.73.1]) by mail.minolta-mil.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA24412 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 22:40:31 -0700 Received: from SMTP agent by mail gateway Tue, 17 Oct 2000 23:04:01 -0800 Message-ID: <000e01c038c9$0bb3f960$b4458218@we.mediaone.net> From: "John Pulera" To: Subject: sample JBIG-encoded TIFF files Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 23:02:22 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000B_01C0388E.4EFEB240" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C0388E.4EFEB240 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear IETF-FAX working group, Can anyone direct me to an Internet site that has sample TIFF-FX Profile = J (B&W JBIG) and/or Profile L (Color JBIG) encoded TIFF files? I have = been hard pressed to find any.=20 I know Genoa puts out a TIFF-FX testing suite, but it does not include = any Profile J or L files or testing capability. Thanks, John Pulera ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C0388E.4EFEB240 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear IETF-FAX working group,
 
Can anyone direct me to an Internet site that = has sample=20 TIFF-FX Profile J (B&W JBIG) and/or Profile L (Color JBIG) = encoded TIFF=20 files? I have been hard pressed to find any.
 
I know Genoa puts out a TIFF-FX testing suite, but = it does not=20 include any Profile J or L files or testing capability.
 
Thanks,
 
John Pulera
------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C0388E.4EFEB240-- From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Wed Oct 18 13:22:55 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA03284 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 13:22:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA18851 for ietf-fax-bks; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 09:28:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [209.55.107.55]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA18847 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 09:28:33 -0700 (PDT) From: ned.freed@innosoft.com Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01JVH70NGTB400058I@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf-fax@imc.org; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 09:33:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 09:16:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: AD review of draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-07.txt and draft-ietf-fax-tiff-regbis-01.txt In-reply-to: "Your message dated Mon, 14 Aug 2000 07:01:53 -0400" <200008141101.HAA03309@ietf.org> To: ietf-fax@imc.org, jraff@brooktrout.com, gparsons@nortelnetworks.com, szilles@adobe.com, rbuckley@crt.xerox.com, dvenable@crt.xerox.com, lmcintyre@pahv.xerox.com Cc: ned.freed@mrochek.com, paf@cisco.com, scoya@ietf.org Message-id: <01JVH7POXAZ800058I@mauve.mrochek.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT I've just reviewed these two documents, and found a few minor issues that need to be addessed: draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-07.txt Abstract. Want to remote the words "proposed standard" from "Proposed Standard RFC 2301", since RFC 2301 won't be a proposed standard any more once this document comes out. draft-ietf-fax-tiff-regbis-01.txt Abstract. Needs to refer to RFC 2302, which is also superseded by this document. Appendix A. We've gotten a lot pickier about documents which define an IANA registration procedure based on past (bad) experience. A simple form for doing the registration isn't enough; you need to define the procedure. See RFC 2434 for detailed guidelines on how this is done. I'm of two minds about whether or not a reviewer is needed. On the one hand, IANA most certainly isn't able to adequately review such a thing by themselves. But on the other hand, realistically, how many of these things do we expect there to be? I would therefore suggest that you simply say that new values of the application parameter need to approved by the IESG prior to registration, and that publication of the details of any new parameter values in an RFC is encouraged. But this is just a suggestion; the specifics are really up to you. You probably want to last call at least draft-ietf-fax-tiff-regbis-01.txt in the WG after resolving these issues. At that point I believe these will be ready for IETF last call. Ned From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Wed Oct 18 14:16:20 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA10117 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 14:16:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA20182 for ietf-fax-bks; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 10:17:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ananke.eastgw.xerox.com (ananke.xerox.com [208.140.33.24]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA20178 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 10:17:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from godzilla.ADOC.xerox.com (godzilla.ADOC.xerox.com [13.242.128.10]) by ananke.eastgw.xerox.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA28133; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 13:21:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mercury.adoc.xerox.com (mercury [13.242.100.20]) by godzilla.ADOC.xerox.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8/ADOC-HUB-1.7) with ESMTP id KAA22209; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 10:21:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mercury.ADOC.xerox.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 10:21:53 -0700 Message-ID: <51B8ABCE456FD111899900805F6FD6EE067A2CE7@mercury.ADOC.xerox.com> From: "McIntyre, Lloyd" To: "'ned.freed@innosoft.com'" , ietf-fax@imc.org, jraff@brooktrout.com, gparsons@nortelnetworks.com, szilles@adobe.com, "Buckley, Robert R" , "Venable, Dennis L" , "McIntyre, Lloyd" Cc: ned.freed@mrochek.com, paf@cisco.com, scoya@ietf.org Subject: RE: AD review of draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-07.txt and draft-ietf-fax -tiff-regbis-01.txt Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 10:21:51 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Ned, Thank you for your feedback on draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-07.txt. Please confirm that a new draft (e.g. draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-08.txt) should be issued to the DL once "proposed standard" has been edited from "Proposed Standard RFC 2301"? I understand that WG to last call will not be necessary. Thanks, Lloyd > -----Original Message----- > From: ned.freed@innosoft.com [mailto:ned.freed@innosoft.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 9:16 AM > To: ietf-fax@imc.org; jraff@brooktrout.com; > gparsons@nortelnetworks.com; > szilles@adobe.com; rbuckley@crt.xerox.com; dvenable@crt.xerox.com; > lmcintyre@pahv.xerox.com > Cc: ned.freed@mrochek.com; paf@cisco.com; scoya@ietf.org > Subject: AD review of draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-07.txt and > draft-ietf-fax-tiff-regbis-01.txt > > > I've just reviewed these two documents, and found a few minor > issues that need > to be addessed: > > draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-07.txt > > Abstract. Want to remote the words "proposed standard" from > "Proposed Standard > RFC 2301", since RFC 2301 won't be a proposed standard any > more once this > document comes out. > > draft-ietf-fax-tiff-regbis-01.txt > > Abstract. Needs to refer to RFC 2302, which is also > superseded by this > document. > > Appendix A. We've gotten a lot pickier about documents which > define an IANA > registration procedure based on past (bad) experience. A > simple form for doing > the registration isn't enough; you need to define the > procedure. See RFC 2434 > for detailed guidelines on how this is done. > > I'm of two minds about whether or not a reviewer is needed. > On the one hand, > IANA most certainly isn't able to adequately review such a > thing by themselves. > But on the other hand, realistically, how many of these > things do we expect > there to be? > > I would therefore suggest that you simply say that new values of the > application parameter need to approved by the IESG prior to > registration, and > that publication of the details of any new parameter values > in an RFC is > encouraged. But this is just a suggestion; the specifics are > really up to you. > > You probably want to last call at least > draft-ietf-fax-tiff-regbis-01.txt > in the WG after resolving these issues. At that point I believe these > will be ready for IETF last call. > > Ned > From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Wed Oct 18 14:28:40 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA11657 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 14:28:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA21072 for ietf-fax-bks; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 10:39:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [209.55.107.55]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA21068 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 10:39:08 -0700 (PDT) From: ned.freed@innosoft.com Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01JVH70NGTB400058I@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf-fax@imc.org; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 10:44:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 10:43:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: RE: AD review of draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-07.txt and draft-ietf-fax -tiff-regbis-01.txt In-reply-to: "Your message dated Wed, 18 Oct 2000 10:21:51 -0700" <51B8ABCE456FD111899900805F6FD6EE067A2CE7@mercury.ADOC.xerox.com> To: "McIntyre, Lloyd" Cc: "'ned.freed@innosoft.com'" , ietf-fax@imc.org, jraff@brooktrout.com, gparsons@nortelnetworks.com, szilles@adobe.com, "Buckley, Robert R" , "Venable, Dennis L" , "McIntyre, Lloyd" , ned.freed@mrochek.com, paf@cisco.com, scoya@ietf.org Message-id: <01JVHA755CIG00058I@mauve.mrochek.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT > Please confirm that a new draft (e.g. draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-08.txt) should > be issued to the DL once "proposed standard" has been edited from "Proposed > Standard RFC 2301"? > I understand that WG to last call will not be necessary. No, for this one there's no need for another WG last call. Ned From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Wed Oct 18 15:13:39 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id PAA18747 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 15:13:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA23286 for ietf-fax-bks; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 11:24:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.minolta-mil.com (mother2.minolta-mil.com [216.148.73.6]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA23281 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 11:24:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SMTP agent by mail gateway Wed, 18 Oct 2000 11:29:59 -0800 Received: from JP2000 (gate.minolta-mil.com [192.148.73.1]) by mail.minolta-mil.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA28938 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 11:05:38 -0700 Received: from SMTP agent by mail gateway Wed, 18 Oct 2000 11:28:57 -0800 Received: from 150.16.242.8 by goldengate.minolta-mil.com Wed, 18 Oct 2000 11:20:08 -0800 From: "John Pulera" To: "IETF - Internet FAX Group" Subject: TIFF-FX Profile M (MRC) on an embedded system? Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 11:30:37 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0007_01C038F6.D68D5230" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C038F6.D68D5230 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by mail.minolta-mil.com id LAA28938 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear IETF-Fax group, I am in the course of implementing an embedded imaging system with TIFF-FX capability, and am wondering if anyone else has run into similar concerns in supporting "Profile M" Mixed Raster Content (profile = is described in RFC2301) on an embedded system: The 3-layer "Mixed Raster Content" as it is described in RFC2301, calls for support of a mask layer (1bpp), background layer (multi-bpp), and foreground layer (multi-bpp). When the Mask layer pixel value is 1, the corresponding pixel from the Foreground layer is selected= ; when it is 0, the corresponding pixel from the Background layer is select= ed. Thus, for three-layer MRC, the following Boolean equation describes any given pixel value: Q =3D (M AND F) OR (M' AND B) where Q is the output pixel value, M the Mask layer pixel value, F the Foreground pixel value, and B the Background layer pixel value. The probl= em is all three layers cannot be logically applied, one after the other, to obtain the final image. M appears twice and therefore needs to be retaine= d during processing of both the Foreground and Background layers. Due to the =93planar=94 style in which each layer is found within a Profi= le M TIFF-FX file, a reader=92s options are not very appealing: a) Retain the uncompressed Mask layer in memory during processing of the Foreground and Background layers. With currently allowable TIFF-FX bi-level resolutions of up to 400 dpi, this would mean buffering up sever= al MB of data in memory. b) Constantly =93ping-pong=94 between the mask layer and Foreground = or Background layer. This would present TIFF-FX reader with much overhead as= it would have to constantly reset the graphics and decompression states base= d on the IFD values for each layer. Such a strategy also assumes there is a small enough difference in file offset between the Mask and the Foregroun= d or Background compressed band data. Any response on this matter is much appreciated. Thanks, John Pulera Minolta Systems Laboratory jpulera@minolta-mil.com ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C038F6.D68D5230 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear = IETF-Fax=20 group,
 
       &nbs= p;   =20 I am in the course of implementing an embedded imaging system with = TIFF-FX=20 capability, and am wondering if anyone else has run into similar = concerns in=20 supporting "Profile M" Mixed Raster Content (profile is described in = RFC2301) on=20 an embedded system:

           =20 The 3-layer "Mixed Raster Content" as it is described in RFC2301, = calls=20 for support of a mask layer (1bpp), background layer (multi-bpp), and = foreground=20 layer (multi-bpp). When the Mask layer pixel value is 1, the = corresponding pixel=20 from the Foreground layer is selected; when it is 0, the corresponding = pixel=20 from the Background layer is selected. =20 Thus, for three-layer MRC, the following Boolean equation = describes any=20 given pixel value:

       &nbs= p;   =20 Q =3D (M AND F)=20 OR (M' AND = B)

where Q is the = output pixel=20 value, M the Mask layer pixel value, F the Foreground pixel value, and B = the=20 Background layer pixel value. The problem is all three layers cannot be=20 logically applied, one after the other, to obtain the final image. M = appears=20 twice and therefore needs to be retained during processing of both the=20 Foreground and Background layers.

Due to the “planar” style = in which each layer is=20 found within a Profile M TIFF-FX file, a reader’s options are not = very=20 appealing:

a)      = Retain=20 the uncompressed Mask layer in memory during processing of the = Foreground and=20 Background layers. With currently allowable TIFF-FX bi-level resolutions = of up=20 to 400 dpi, this would mean buffering up several MB of data in = memory.

b)     =20 Constantly “ping-pong” between the mask layer and = Foreground or=20 Background layer. This would present TIFF-FX reader with much overhead = as it=20 would have to constantly reset the graphics and decompression states = based on=20 the IFD values for each layer. Such a strategy also assumes there is a = small=20 enough difference in file offset between the Mask and the Foreground or=20 Background compressed band data.

 
Any = response on this=20 matter is much appreciated.
 
Thanks,
 
John=20 Pulera
Minolta Systems=20 Laboratory
jpulera@minolta-mil.com
 
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C038F6.D68D5230-- From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Wed Oct 18 20:31:32 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id UAA25190 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 20:31:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA00962 for ietf-fax-bks; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 16:50:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail15a.boca15-verio.com (mail15a.boca15-verio.com [208.55.91.57]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA00958 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 16:50:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from www.snowshore.com (128.241.144.247) by mail15a.boca15-verio.com (RS ver 1.0.57s) with SMTP id 05804568; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 19:55:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <022d01c0395e$bbaa8ec0$0201015a@crv.com> From: "Eric Burger" To: , Received: from EBURGER by [206.82.56.2] via smtpd (for www.snowshore.com [128.241.144.247]) with SMTP; 18 Oct 2000 23:57:22 UT Subject: draft-ietf-vpim-cc-01.txt Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 19:54:19 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Loop-Detect: 1 Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Since I'm bored with Herbal V, here's some VPIM traffic. I've submitted a new version of the Critical Content draft. To conserve list bandwidth, I haven't blasted it out to the list. You can download it from the I-D directory once the editors post it. If you're impatient, you can go to http://briefcase.yahoo.com/awe3bz in the folder VPIM. Here's what's changed: Made clear Critical Content is useful for any gateway situation in Abstract. Took out language about PNDN. Reduced Criticality to "CRITICAL" and "IGNORE" (dropped IMPORTANT). Added discussion on MIME Interactions (Section 6) From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Fri Oct 20 07:27:32 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id HAA21872 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 07:27:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA09183 for ietf-fax-bks; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 03:35:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA09179 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 03:35:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA14424; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 06:40:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200010201040.GAA14424@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: ietf-fax@imc.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-08.txt Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 06:40:39 -0400 Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Internet Fax Working Group of the IETF. Title : File Format for Internet Fax Author(s) : R. Buckley, D. Venable, S. Zilles, L. McIntyre, G. Parsons, J. Rafferty Filename : draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-08.txt Pages : 86 Date : 19-Oct-00 This document is a revised version of RFC 2301. The revisions, summarized in the list attached as Annex C to this document, are based on the discussions and suggestions for improvements that have been made since RFC 2301 was issued in March 1998, and on the results of independent implementations and interoperability testing. This RFC 2301 revision describes the TIFF (Tag Image File Format) representation of image data specified by the ITU-T Recommendations for black-and-white and color facsimile. This file format specification is commonly known as TIFF-FX. It formally defines minimal, extended and lossless JBIG profiles (Profiles S, F, J) for black-and-white fax, and base JPEG, lossless JBIG and Mixed Raster Content profiles (Profiles C, L, M) for color and grayscale fax. These profiles correspond to the content of the applicable ITU-T Recommendations. Files formatted according to this specification use the image/tiff MIME Content Type. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-08.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-08.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-08.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <20001019142330.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-08.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-08.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <20001019142330.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Sun Oct 22 20:25:09 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id UAA10352 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 20:25:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA13781 for ietf-fax-bks; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 16:39:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gtei2.bellatlantic.net (gtei2.bellatlantic.net [199.45.39.161]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA13777 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 16:39:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eburger.ieee.org (adsl-141-156-32-118.bellatlantic.net [141.156.32.118]) by gtei2.bellatlantic.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA07960; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 19:44:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.0.20001020165419.009dd1f0@mailbox.bellatlantic.net> X-Sender: ewburger@mailbox.bellatlantic.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 17:07:11 -0400 To: ietf-fax@imc.org From: Eric Burger Subject: PNDN (draft-ietf-vpim-pndn-00.txt) Cc: vpim@lists.neystadt.org In-Reply-To: <20000904152401V.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> References: <20000821151221R.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: At 03:24 PM 9/4/00 +0900, Hiroshi Tamura wrote: >[snip] >To Eric: >Some FAX WG people do not follow it well. >Could you please explain PNDN briefly? First of all, the URL for the draft is at http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-vpim-pndn-00.txt PNDN, or Partial Non-Delivery Notification, is a NDN mechanism. In the e-mail world, an e-mail either gets delivered in its entirety or not at all. In the voice and fax worlds, or for that matter any situation where one sends a multiple-media message to a system that cannot render all the media types, parts of the message may not be delivered, even if the message was "delivered", in its entirety, to the receiving system. PNDN reports on the delivery status of MIME body parts in a MIME message. The message may be received successfully, but one or more "important" parts may not be renderable or even stored by the receiving system. PNDN lets the sending system know about the status of the "important" parts. Said differently, as RFC822 Message is to NDN, a MIME Body Part is to PNDN. Such a mechanism may be of use to the ifax WG if you will be dealing with multiple-media messages, such as voice + fax being sent to a fax-only device. It could also be useful if you send a multi-page fax as multiple MIME body parts. In this case, if a page fails, the sender would get a report on the failed page, rather than failing the whole message. However, PNDN would not be useful if there is only one body part, and a "sub-part", e.g., a page within a multi-page TIFF-F, fails. If PNDN is of use to the ifax WG, I would be happy to resubmit it as a ifax WG draft, with any tweaks you may need. From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Wed Oct 25 22:34:54 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id WAA24895 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 22:34:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA22102 for ietf-fax-bks; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 18:51:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ricohigw.ricoh.co.jp (ricohigw.ricoh.co.jp [202.32.12.1]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA22098 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 18:51:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from thunder.ricoh.co.jp (thunder [133.139.211.198]) by ricohigw.ricoh.co.jp (8.9.3+3.2W/3.7W) with ESMTP id KAA14007; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 10:57:15 +0900 (JST) Received: from newton.toda.ricoh.co.jp (newton.toda.ricoh.co.jp [133.139.60.10]) by thunder.ricoh.co.jp (8.9.3+3.2W/3.7W) with SMTP id KAA08342; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 10:57:12 +0900 (JST) Received: from localhost (maple.toda.ricoh.co.jp [133.139.60.73]) by newton.toda.ricoh.co.jp (8.6.11+2.4W/3.3W9-1.0S8sun) with ESMTP id KAA21287; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 10:57:07 +0900 To: jraff@brooktrout.com, gparsons@nortelnetworks.com, szilles@Adobe.COM Cc: ietf-fax@imc.org, ned.freed@innosoft.com, paf@cisco.com, scoya@ietf.org Subject: Re: AD review of draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-07.txt and draft-ietf-fax-tiff-regbis-01.txt In-Reply-To: <01JVH7POXAZ800058I@mauve.mrochek.com> References: <200008141101.HAA03309@ietf.org> <01JVH7POXAZ800058I@mauve.mrochek.com> X-Mailer: Mew version 1.94.2 on Emacs 20.4 / Mule 4.1 (AOI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20001026110031X.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 11:00:31 +0900 (JST) From: Hiroshi Tamura X-Dispatcher: imput version 20000228(IM140) Lines: 41 Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Parsons-san, Rafferty-san, Zilles-san, (editor of draft-ietf-fax-tiff-regbis-01.txt) There are things we have to solve for this I-D. From AD's comment, > draft-ietf-fax-tiff-regbis-01.txt > > Abstract. Needs to refer to RFC 2302, which is also superseded by this > document. > > Appendix A. We've gotten a lot pickier about documents which define an IANA > registration procedure based on past (bad) experience. A simple form for doing > the registration isn't enough; you need to define the procedure. See RFC 2434 > for detailed guidelines on how this is done. > > I'm of two minds about whether or not a reviewer is needed. On the one hand, > IANA most certainly isn't able to adequately review such a thing by themselves. > But on the other hand, realistically, how many of these things do we expect > there to be? > > I would therefore suggest that you simply say that new values of the > application parameter need to approved by the IESG prior to registration, and > that publication of the details of any new parameter values in an RFC is > encouraged. But this is just a suggestion; the specifics are really up to you. > > You probably want to last call at least draft-ietf-fax-tiff-regbis-01.txt > in the WG after resolving these issues. At that point I believe these > will be ready for IETF last call. Do you prepare for resolving them? Please let us know. Regards, -- Hiroshi Tamura, Co-chair of IETF-FAX WG From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Thu Oct 26 19:21:43 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id TAA16662 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 19:21:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA04669 for ietf-fax-bks; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 15:47:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ricohigw.ricoh.co.jp (ricohigw.ricoh.co.jp [202.32.12.1]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA04664 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 15:47:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from thunder.ricoh.co.jp (thunder [133.139.211.198]) by ricohigw.ricoh.co.jp (8.9.3+3.2W/3.7W) with ESMTP id HAA27603 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 07:51:00 +0900 (JST) Received: from newton.toda.ricoh.co.jp (newton.toda.ricoh.co.jp [133.139.60.10]) by thunder.ricoh.co.jp (8.9.3+3.2W/3.7W) with SMTP id HAA20182 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 07:51:00 +0900 (JST) Received: from localhost (maple.toda.ricoh.co.jp [133.139.60.73]) by newton.toda.ricoh.co.jp (8.6.11+2.4W/3.3W9-1.0S8sun) with ESMTP id HAA00876 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 07:50:57 +0900 To: ietf-fax@imc.org Subject: 49th IETF: Preliminary Agenda X-Mailer: Mew version 1.94.2 on Emacs 20.4 / Mule 4.1 (AOI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20001027075421O.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 07:54:21 +0900 (JST) From: Hiroshi Tamura X-Dispatcher: imput version 20000228(IM140) Lines: 15 Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Folks, For your informaion, Out slot is allocated to the following time. THURSDAY, December 14, 2000 0900-1130 Morning Sessions APP fax Internet Fax WG This is preliminary. -- Hiroshi Tamura, Co-chair of IETF-FAX WG E-mail: tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Fri Oct 27 13:07:22 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA00478 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 13:07:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA19273 for ietf-fax-bks; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 09:25:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from topaz.3com.com (topaz.3com.com [192.156.136.158]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA19269 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 09:25:49 -0700 (PDT) From: James_Renkel@3com.com Received: from opal.3com.com (opal.3com.com [139.87.50.117]) by topaz.3com.com (Switch-2.0.1/Switch-2.0.1) with ESMTP id e9RGUeT08223 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 09:30:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hqoutbound.ops.3com.com (hqoutbound.OPS.3Com.COM [139.87.48.104]) by opal.3com.com (Switch-2.0.1/Switch-2.0.1) with SMTP id e9RGVE119460 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 09:31:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by hqoutbound.ops.3com.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.7 (934.1 12-30-1999)) id 88256985.005ADC77 ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 09:32:26 -0700 X-Lotus-FromDomain: 3COM To: ietf-fax@imc.org Message-ID: <88256985.005AD64A.00@hqoutbound.ops.3com.com> Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 11:32:44 -0500 Subject: Request for information on using T.30/T.37/T.38 with SIP/SDP/RTP Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: The 3Com Carrier Networks Business System Engineering group is working on extending and integrating some of our products to achieve greater functionality and better interworking in the areas of store-and-forward and real-time facsimile transmission. Products in this area include facsimile applications systems and PSTN-Internet interworking gateways. Does anyone know of any work that has been done or is being done or anyone that has done or is doing work in the areas of: o specification of T.30/T.37/T.38 payload formats for RTP and other transport protocols; and o specification of the above media stream types in SDP/SIP. Any information you have on this would be greatly approciated. Thank you in advance for your attention to this. Jim Renkel Director, Advanced Technology & System Engineering 3Com Carrier Networks Business From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Fri Oct 27 17:58:23 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id RAA12829 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 17:58:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA07420 for ietf-fax-bks; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 14:23:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rwcxch02.clarent.com ([208.205.112.2]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA07416 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 14:23:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rwcxch02.clarent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <4V3F3KK5>; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 14:26:16 -0700 Message-ID: <6374EFC78443D41197DD00508B5C35DD017A8820@rwcxch02.clarent.com> From: Jean-Francois Mule To: James_Renkel@3com.com, ietf-fax@imc.org Cc: sip@lists.bell-labs.com Subject: RE: Request for information on using T.30/T.37/T.38 with SIP/SDP/ RTP Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 14:26:16 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Jim, There is an Internet-Draft on SIP and T.38 fax calls at http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mule-sip-t38callflows-00.txt It deals with how to negotiate a t.38 fax calls using sip as a signaling protocol (including switch over from audio/rtp to data/t38), the SDP attributes that itu-t sg-8 has registered with IANA. Comments are appreciated on this Internet-Draft. > o specification of T.30/T.37/T.38 payload formats for RTP and other > transport > protocols; and To my knowledge, T.38 and T.37 recommendations do not rely on RTP encapsulation. For T.38, see itu-t t.38 specification (t.38 IFP fax packets can be carried over TCP or UDP and for UDP, the t.38 spec defines a UDP transport layer UDPTL) > o specification of the above media stream types in SDP/SIP. This is covered in the ITU-T document sent by sg-8 to IANA and summarized in the above Internet Draft for reference only. This is a first draft and comments are welcome. Jean-Francois Mule Clarent Corporation > -----Original Message----- > From: James_Renkel@3com.com [mailto:James_Renkel@3com.com] > Sent: Friday, October 27, 2000 9:33 AM > To: ietf-fax@imc.org > Subject: Request for information on using T.30/T.37/T.38 with > SIP/SDP/RTP > > > > > The 3Com Carrier Networks Business System Engineering group is working > on > extending and integrating some of our products to achieve greater > functionality > and better interworking in the areas of store-and-forward and > real-time > facsimile transmission. Products in this area include facsimile > applications > systems and PSTN-Internet interworking gateways. > > Does anyone know of any work that has been done or is being done or > anyone that > has done or is doing work in the areas of: > o specification of T.30/T.37/T.38 payload formats for RTP and other > transport > protocols; and > o specification of the above media stream types in SDP/SIP. > > Any information you have on this would be greatly > approciated. Thank you > in > advance for your attention to this. > > Jim Renkel > Director, Advanced Technology & System Engineering > 3Com Carrier Networks Business > From owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Mon Oct 30 16:51:13 2000 Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id QAA13550 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 16:51:13 -0500 (EST) Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA21856 for ietf-fax-bks; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 12:54:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from relay2.shore.net (relay2.shore.net [207.244.125.21]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA21845 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 12:54:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from (hither.rfdsoftware.com) [209.192.222.62] by relay2.shore.net with esmtp (Exim) id 13qM2u-0006x1-00; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 16:00:44 -0500 Received: from cx991414-a.dialout.net (cx991414-d.crans1.ri.home.com [24.180.58.118]) by hither.rfdsoftware.com (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id PAA16116; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 15:53:08 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.2.20001030154632.0395cc70@webhost.tactical-sw.com> X-Sender: dnyon@webhost.tactical-sw.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 15:53:40 -0500 To: Jean-Francois Mule , ietf-fax@imc.org From: David Yon Subject: Re: [SIP] RE: Request for information on using T.30/T.37/T.38 with SIP/SDP/ RTP Cc: sip@lists.bell-labs.com In-Reply-To: <6374EFC78443D41197DD00508B5C35DD017A8820@rwcxch02.clarent. com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: I know that the I-D specifically defers the discussion of media transport using TCP rather than UDPTL, but at the same time it also refers to a new token "TCP" to be registered with IANA for use in SDP. I am of the opinion that simply specifying "TCP" is insufficient to describe how TCP-based Media Transport is to be negotiated between two endpoints. I've submitted an Internet Draft for the MMUSIC group which will hopefully be available in the IETF I-D area soon, but for the moment it can be read here: ftp://ftp.dialout.net/drafts/draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-tcpmedia-00.txt So, in regards to the SIP/T.38 I-D, my only comment would be that it take into account the I-D on SDP/TCP. Or at the very least, participate with better defining the SDP/TCP I-D such that is meets the needs of SIP/T.38 when using TCP for Media Transport. As such, any comments on the I-D above would be greatly appreciated. Again, hopefully the draft will be in the IETF area soon, I don't know why it is taking so long to work through the queue. At 02:26 PM 10/27/00 -0700, Jean-Francois Mule wrote: >There is an Internet-Draft on SIP and T.38 fax calls at >http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mule-sip-t38callflows-00.txt >It deals with how to negotiate a t.38 fax calls using sip as a signaling >protocol (including switch over from audio/rtp to data/t38), the SDP >attributes that itu-t sg-8 has registered with IANA. Comments are >appreciated on this Internet-Draft. > > David Yon Chief Technical Officer Dialout.Net, Inc. yon@dialout.net