Subject: Re: [IETF-FAX] Request for IESG Consideration on Service I-D

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 09:06:35 -0700 (PDT)

> A Simple Mode of Facsimile Using Internet Mail
>   draft-ietf-fax-service-v2-03.txt

> Status: Draft Standard

A few things need to be fixed before this one will be ready for IETF
last call.

(1) This document apparently obsoletes RFC 2305 but never mentions RFC 2305.
    At a minimum you need to have "Obsoletes: RFC 2305" in the document header,
    you need to include RFC 2305 in the references, and you need to have a
    section explaining the differences between this document and RFC 2305.

(2) I don't insist on it, but since this document talks about "network
    printers" some discussion of its relationship with IPP might be
    appropriate.

(3) References [10] and [11] needs to be updated to refer to the recently
    approved updates to RFC 2303 and RFC 2304. (It is OK to reference a
    draft that is in the RFC publication queue, as these are.)

(4) This document has lots of references, some of which are normative and
    some of which are not. (And yes, I'm well aware of the issue surrounding
    the updates to the DSN specifications.) It would be really helpful if
    you could separate the normative and non-normative references, making
    it clear what needs to in place before this can actually be published.

(5) Appendix A uses the capitalized phrase "NOT REQUIRED". We try and reserve
    use of capitalization of this sort to the terms defined in RFC 2119.
    (And yes, I do realize that this wasn't caught in the previous version.)
    I suggest that you either lower case these words or reword to use the
    regular capitalized terms (MAY is the one that comes to mind).

Let me know when a new draft has been submitted and I'll review it again.

				Ned

---

From: Hiroshi Tamura <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 08:09:31 +0900 (JST)

Ned,

Thank you for your comment for

> >   draft-ietf-fax-service-v2-03.txt

I have a small question, instead of the editors.

>     it clear what needs to in place before this can actually be published.

The I-D refers RFC2302(Tag Image File Format (TIFF) - image/tiff
MIME Sub-type Registration), which is Proposed Standard, now.
We have a I-D draft-ietf-fax-tiff-regbis-02.txt, which will replace RFC2302.
It is being proposed as BCP, along with Draft Standard consideration
for draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-09.txt.

RFC2302 describes only the registration of the MIME sub-type image/tiff.
Therefore, the working group agrees the status should be changed to BCP.

My question is,
Is this document normative or non-normative for draft-ietf-fax-service-v2-03.txt?

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