Subject: [Fax]Results of ITU-T Meeting on Internet Fax

From: James Rafferty <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 18:13:01 +0000

Folks, 

We had a productive meeting this past week with the ITU Question 4 of Study
Group 8 in the United Kingdom.   ISOC/IETF was represented by Dave Crocker,
Graham Klyne and myself; we presented the current IETF Fax documents on
extended mode Internet fax.   

There was agreement reached that the T.37 recommendation should be extended
to support a Full Mode.   An Amendment 1 has been drafted and was
determined (the first step of the ITU-T approval process) at the SG8
plenary meeting on Friday.   

The technical details of the full mode are defined by reference to IETF
documents:  
-eifax for procedures, RFC 2301 for file formats, fax-feature-schema for
capabilities format, reporting extensions for a capabilities mechanism, and
the MDN/DSN RFCs per the text in -eifax.   

The key task ahead of us in the IETF is to complete the documents and the
approval process for -eifax and its referenced documents.   

What the ITU needs from us are RFC numbers and , eventually, copies of the
RFCs themselves.   The targeted approval meeting for the T.37 amendment is
in late March/early April 1999.       

There are a couple of comments on -eifax which I think we can accomodate
without problems; we will see them in a communication from Q4 rapporteur
Herman Silbiger shortly.  

As I mentioned in previous notes, the best case scenario for the ITU would
be if all of our referenced documents were approved (via the IETF process)
and RFC numbers were assigned by early December.   This would enable the
RFC references to be placed in the white contribution version of the T.37
amendment that is circulated.   

There is a fallback position if we don't make this deadline, but I think we
should shoot to hit the early December target if at all possible.   

As you know, we are in WG Last Call on the three documents that are being
referenced (eifax, reporting-extensions and fax-feature-schema),  I believe
the first two are basically complete (once we process the ITU comments).   

Fax-feature-schema is progressing well, but will need a concentrated review
in the immediate future for us to be certain is it stable.  Lloyd and
Graham had some good face-to-face meetings on-site in the UK, and a new
draft should reflect their latest work on the open issues shortly.   

Finally, the -eifax and -schema documents reference the registration, media
features and -syntax documents in the CONNEG working group.  Per Ted
Hardie, the first two documents are basically stable and being readied for
the IESG; good progress has been made on the -syntax document, but Ted has
made a call to ensure that the document received substantive review.   So,
I encourage those in the Fax group to review the CONNEG documents and
submit comments to the CONNEG list as applicable to help move these
documents along.   

My thanks to Dave and Graham for their good work onsite, and to the ADs and
ISOC VP of Standards Scott Bradner for their continuing support of the
IETF/ITU cooperative process.   The ITU-T SG8 management on site(vice-chair
Alan Pugh and Q4 rapporteur Herman Silbiger) were also instrumental in
helping to support continued progress.   

Regards, 

James Rafferty
Chair, IETF Fax working group 

*------------------------------------------------*
James Rafferty			
President, Human Communications 	
12 Kevin Drive			
Danbury, CT  06811-2901		
USA					
Voice/Fax:  +1-203-746-4367
Email:  [email-masked]
	 [email-masked]

HC Web Site:  http://www.humancomm.com  
*---------------------------------------------------

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 13:54:48 -0800 (PST)

I would like to echo James's call for help with
reviewing the -syntax document in the CONNEG
group.  If you have implmentation experience
with any aspect of the current draft, we are
especially anxious to hear from you.  We have
a good amount of experience within the group
for implementation within the HTTP context,
but experience in other contexts would be
very useful in progressing these documents.

Thanks for your help,
		best regards,
			Ted Hardie
			[email-masked]

>James Rafferty wrote: