Subject: AD review of draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-07.txt and draft-ietf-fax-tiff-regbis-01.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 09:16:15 -0700 (PDT)

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 Needs to refer to RFC 2302, which is also superseded by this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: Hiroshi Tamura <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 11:00:31 +0900 (JST)

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,

> 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