Subject: IESG comments on draft-ietf-fax-tiff-regbis-04.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 09:51:45 -0700 (PDT)

This document was on the IESG's agenda today. Unfortunately, a number of issues
have arisen that need to be addressed.

First and foremost is the document status. The IESG doesn't believe publication
as BCP is appropriate. It really needs to be on the standards track. So what's
going to happen now is that a new IETF last call will be issued for standards
track.

Now, in order to expedite this process the IESG has already reviewed the
document and found a number of issues that need to be addressed:

  This document needs a changes section describing how it differs
  from RFC 2302.

  The abstract needs to be revised to expand the various acronyms used
  in it.

  A security considerations section needs to be added. The one in the
  media type registration is insufficient.

  The following text needs to be added to the description of the
  application parameter:

        An "application" field is a hint to the receiver.  It MUST NOT
        be used as a blind request to execute some arbitrary program.

        Instead, it should be viewed as nothing more than an
        indication of what sort of application would be able to
        handle the content most appropriately.

  The bibliography needs to be separated into normative and nonnormative
  references.

  There needs to be a nonnormative reference to RFC 2302 in the bibliography.

  Please change the "Encoding Considerations" in section 7 to
  read:

     Encoding Considerations: This media type consists of binary
     data. The base64 should be used on transports that cannot
     accomodate binary data directly.

So the process going forward will be first for the authors to issue a revised
draft that addresses these points. This needs to be done as quickly as
possible. Once the revision is out there will be an immediate last call for
proposed. And once that's over the IESG should be able to approve the document
quite quickly given that it has already been reviewed.

				Ned