Subject: RE: TIFF-FX: where are the implementor's statements of compliance ?

From: "Buckley, Robert R" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 17:16:35 -0500

Larry,

RFC 2301 went to Proposed Standard in March 1998. So I don't understand your
comment about the interop test, reported in March 1999, being made at the
point of moving the document to Proposed Standard. The interop testing was
done after the Proposed Standard issued as part of the process to advance to
Draft Standard, per RFC 2026. 

Rob

-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Masinter [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 12:53 PM
To: 'Hiroshi Tamura'; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Subject: RE: TIFF-FX: where are the implementor's statements of
compliance ?

> Yes. I would like to emphasize the above things that Lloyd said.
> There were no comments where the report was submitted to IESG.
> Also, there were no negative comments when RFC2301 had come out.

The interoperability test made in March 1999 was made at the
point of moving the document to "Proposed Standard". Proposed
standard does not require independent interoperable implementations
with intellectual property license statements from the
implementors. No comment about the lack of implementations
or the lack of statements from the implementors was appropriate
at that time.

"Proposed Standard" does not require implementations
at all. All "Proposed Standard" requires is that implementations are
believed to be possible. So comments on the adequacy of implementations
 were not appropriate.

"Proposed Standard" does not require licensing. In any case,
some of the notification about intellectual property claims
were made AFTER RFC 2301 was issued; please compare the date
of the IPR statements to the date of the RFC. So no comments
about licensing or IPR statements would have been appropriate
at the time RFC 2301 had come out.

We are now at a different point in the standards process,
trying to move to "Draft Standard". The requirements for
"Draft Standard" are different than the requirements for
"Proposed Standard". 

It is only when one proposes moving to "Draft Standard" that
additional requirements are placed, and when objections
about not meeting those requirements are appropriate.
"Draft Standard" requires implementations and statements
from the implementors.

One might have expected that in the two years since the
release of the "Proposed Standard" documents that there would be
Internet Fax implementations that actually did use these features;
perhaps this was the hope when RFC 2301 was written. But this
has not happened.

There do not seem to be any more implementations, and many of the
implementations that existed in March 1999 are no longer
listed on the web sites of their implementors and the test files
listed are no longer available.  The old interoperability statement
is outdated, some of the implementations were from the
IPR holders or their subsidiaries (and thus could not be
considered 'independent exercise of the license agreement'),
some of the implementations were test suites that did not
need licensing of technology for encoders or decoders, 
and none of the implementations in that document for profiles
other than S and F were "Internet Fax" implementations.

I have raised the comments about the lack of operational
implementations since the proposal to advance the document to "Draft
Standard" was raised. Raising these comments at any previous
time would be inappropriate, because independent interoperable
implementations and "operational experience" were not
required before, and we should give implementors time to
step forward.

But no implementors have stepped forward. Instead we are
given the same old March 1999 interoperability report.

Since at least some level of new interoperability testing
for profiles using "image/tiff-fx" MIME type will be done,
let's make sure that this testing also meets the actual
requirements for "Draft Standard". That way, we can determine
what implementations exist now and determine which features
are actually operational and licensed.

Larry
-- 
http://larry.masinter.net