Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-fax-content-negotiation-05.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 07:10:19 -0400

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-05.txt
	Pages		: 50
	Date		: 12-Jun-01
	
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-05.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-05.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:
	[email-masked].
In the body type:
	"FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-fax-content-negotiation-05.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.

---

From: Hiroshi Tamura <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 11:17:54 +0900 (JST)

Thanks, the editors.
It seems that the work has almost finished.

But, for our confirmation, how do you proceed with the followings?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  REVIEW CHECKLIST:

  (Points to be checked more widely on or before final review)

  o  Check the correct final disposition for lost message data (3.4)

  o  Editorial:  IANA action for new message headers (section 9.1)?
     Handling of internal document references.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Personally, I think 3.4 is one of difficult issues to deal with.
But, the description here can be acceptable.

The Minneapolis minutes for this I-D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   He presented the status of the documents. There were a few discussions
   in ML in February and they are already considered in next version.
   Except for that, there were no comments in the last weeks, thus it seems
   ready for final publication. The WG did no objection to it.

   Larry Masinter suggests that "content-type" should always be included
   in "content-alternative" header. The editor replied that this is only
   needed when a non-TIFF file format is being used. In ML, this issue
   will be resolved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding the unsolved issues there, it seems that -05 covers everything.

As a co-chair, I would like to know your final decision.
Last call or something.....

Regards,
--
Hiroshi Tamura, Co-chair of IETF-FAX WG
E-mail: [email-masked]

---

From: Graham Klyne <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 08:29:21 +0100

My view is this:

If the working group is happy with the resolution as stated, there is no 
more to do.  The "checklist" was there to draw attention to items we felt 
might be handled differently.

I think this draft is ready for last call.

#g
--

>But, for our confirmation, how do you proceed with the followings?

------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne                    Baltimore Technologies
Strategic Research              Content Security Group
<[email-masked]>    <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
                                 <http://www.baltimore.com>
------------------------------------------------------------