Subject: Re-iteration of Adobe concerns regarding TIFF FX

From: "Scott Foshee" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 07:18:55 -0800

Hello everyone,

I am the person at Adobe responsible for TIFF.  I am writing everyone to
re-iterate the Adobe concerns regarding TIFF FX that I stated in a December
21st e-mail to the TIFF FX management group.  We continue to believe that
TIFF FX is outside the scope of our license grant and fails to satisfy RFC
2026.  That e-mail is in-line below.

Further, I notified the TIFF FX management group that the public tags
requested through Adobe devsup were not approved.  Adobe has provided the
IETF the procedure for requesting these tags.  The two documents describing
this procedure are also enclosed.

However, Adobe understands from an e-mail copied to Steve Zilles that the
IESG is considering moving TIFF FX to completion based on a Xerox response
said to address our concerns.  We have not seen this response.  Nor have
our concerns been satisfied.   Before TIFF FX moves any further forward, we
would like to review Xerox's response and understand the IETF position.

Adobe continues to be interested in working with the IETF to resolve this.
Please use me as your point of contact within Adobe regarding all TIFF and
TIFF FX matters.  We look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Scott Foshee

-------------
-------------
>Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 16:40:09 -0800
>To: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>, Patrik Faltstrom <[email-masked]>,
[email-masked]
>From: Scott Foshee <[email-masked]>
>Subject: Issues regarding TIFF use in the specification of TIFF FX
>Cc: Claudio Allocchio <[email-masked]>, Hiroshi Tamura
<[email-masked]>
>
>Ref:	File Format for Internet Fax <draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-09.txt> and
related documents
>
>Gentlemen:
>
>     I am the person at Adobe responsible for TIFF.  Most of my
interactions have been directly with the person most recently editing the
TIFF FX document--rather than participation in the IETF Fax Working Group,
so I must apologize for my inattention to the IETF development process and
my submission of a comment so late in the IETF development cycle.  However,
in reviewing the Draft-Internet specification posted on November 17, 2000,
I have identified two key concerns that need consideration as part of the
IESG/IETF last call:
>          1)  The TIFF FX document indicates a use of TIFF that is outside
the scope of the September 1997 license grant by Adobe to the IETF.
>          2)  It would seem that the IETF process requirement per RFC 2026
which requires that "separate implementations must also have resulted from
separate exercise of the licensing process" has not been satisfied.
>
>     This problem stems from the inaction of those involved in not
addressing a gap between the Adobe license grant regarding TIFF use by the
ITU/IETF and the stated functionality of TIFF FX.  No individuals, groups,
or companies have approached Adobe to request a TIFF license of sufficient
scope to cover TIFF FX as would be required.  Even though Adobe
participation in the Internet Fax Working Group ceased with our editor
stepping down in Spring 1998, I have continued discussions with the
individuals who continue to edit the TIFF FX specification.  I have
continually told them that their requested TIFF technical changes--to close
the gap--are unapproved.  My review of the November document confirmed that
the gap still exists.
>
>     Therefore, I request that you delay continued progression of TIFF FX
to Draft Standard until the requirements of RFC 2026 are clearly met.
>
>     I am confident that Adobe can reach an agreement with those wishing
to make use of TIFF in the development of TIFF FX.  For instance, if
certain elements of TIFF FX were placed in private tags, this would bring
TIFF FX into scope of the existing license--although other options
certainly exist.  Procedurally, if TIFF FX were split into two documents
according to license scope, quick progression could be applied to the
document in scope of the 1997 license.  I am committed to work with the
groups involved to explore these and other options. 
>Sincerely,
>Scott Foshee

Scott Foshee, Ph.D.			v: 408-536-4299
Adobe Systems Inc.			f: 408-537-4198
345 Park Ave.			[email-masked]
San Jose, CA			http://www.adobe.com

---

From: Hiroshi Tamura <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 08:17:39 +0900 (JST)

Scott,

Some issues I can comment.

> this procedure are also enclosed.

Yes. But, I think it is only for Tiff-fx *Extension* document
(draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-extension1-01.txt),
not for TIFF FX draft standard consideration(draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-09.txt).
Because the public tags in -09.txt are already registered.

In the extension document, the new version, -01, does not include
*new* public tags, which we would request.
It seems that the editor take them from the old version, -00.

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