One document matched: draft-ietf-fax-implementers-guide-02.txt
Differences from draft-ietf-fax-implementers-guide-01.txt
IETF Fax Working Group Vivian Cancio
Internet Draft Xerox Corporation
Category: Work-in-progress Mike Moldovan
Intended Category: Informational G3Nova Technology, Inc.
Hiroshi Tamura
Ricoh Company, LTD.
14 July 2000
Expires: January 2001
Implementers Guide for Facsimile Using Internet Mail
<draft-ietf-fax-implementers-guide-02.txt>
Status of this memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts
as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in
progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
[[INTENDED STATUS: This memo provides information for the Internet
community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.
Distribution of this memo is unlimited.]]
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society 1999. All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This document is intended for the implementers of software which uses email to
send to facsimiles using RFC 2305 and 2532.
This is an informational document and its guidelines do not supersede the
referenced documents.
Cancio, Moldovan, Tamura Work-in-progress [Page 1]
Internet draft Implementers Guide 14 July 2000
Table of contents
1. Introduction
1.1 Organization of this document
1.2 Convention of this document
1.3 Discussion of this document
2. Terminology
3. Implementation Issues Specific to Simple Mode
3.1 Simple Mode Fax Senders
3.1.1 Multipart-alternative
3.2 Simple Mode Fax Receivers
3.2.1 Multipart-alternative and Storage Capacity
4. Implementation Issues Specific to Extended Mode
4.1 Multipart-alternative
4.2 Correlation of MDN with Original Message
4.3 Correlation of DSN with Original Message
4.4 Extended Mode Receivers
4.4.1 Confirmation of receipt and processing from UA Clients
4.4.1.1 Discrepancies in MDN [9] Interpretation
4.4.1.2 Disposition-Type: "dispatched"
4.4.1.3 "Subject" of MDN in Success and Failure Cases
4.4.1.4 "Body" of MDN in Success and Failure Cases
4.4.2 Extended Mode Receivers that are MTAs (or ESMTP servers)
4.4.2.1 Success Case Example
4.4.2.2 Failure Case Example 1
4.4.2.3 Failure Case Example 2
4.4.3 Extended Mode Receivers that are POP3/IMAP4
4.4.3.1 Success Case Example
4.4.3.2 Failure Case Example
4.4.4 Receiving Multiple TIFF-FX Attachments
5. Implementation Issues the File Format
5.1 IFD Placement in TIFF file & Profile-S Constraints
5.2 Precautions for implementers of RFC 2301 [4]
5.2.1 TIFF Readers: Be Cautious with Headers
5.2.2 TIFF Writers: Be Cautious in use of IFD
5.2.3 IFD Entry Errors
5.2.4 Strip Errors
5.2.5 Image Errors
5.2.6 Profile Specific Errors
6. Security considerations
7. Acknowledgements
8. References
9. Authors' addresses
Full copyright statement
Revision history
Cancio, Moldovan, Tamura Work-in-progress [Page 2]
Internet draft Implementers Guide 14 July 2000
1. Introduction
This document clarifies published RFCs which standardize facsimile
communications using Internet Email. The intent is to prevent implementations
that deviate in such a way as to cause interoperability problems.
1.1 Organization of this document
See Section 2 for terminology.
a) Simple mode clarifications
b) Extended mode clarifications
c) File format clarifications
d) Fax Addressing Clarifications
e) Open implementation issues
1.2. Convention of this document
[[[Editorial comments from authors are embedded in triple brackets
and will be removed before publication]]]
1.3 Discussion of this document
Discussion of this document should take place on the Internet fax
mailing list hosted by the Internet Mail Consortium (IMC). Please
send comments regarding this document to:
ietf-fax@imc.org
To subscribe to this list, send a message with the body 'subscribe'
to "ietf-fax-request@imc.org".
To see what has gone on before you subscribed, please see the
mailing list archive at:
http://www.imc.org/ietf-fax/
2. Terminology
Simple Mode - RFC 2305, "A Simple Mode of Facsimile Using Internet Mail" [2]
Extended Mode - RFC 2532, "Extended Facsimile Using Internet Mail" [3]
TIFF-FX - RFC 2301, "File Format for Internet Fax" [4]
UA - User Agent
DSN - Delivery Status Notification [7]
MDN - Message Disposition Notification [9]
In examples: - "C:" is used to indicates lines sent by the client, and
"S:" to indicate those sent by the server.
MTA - Message Transfer Agent
Cancio, Moldovan, Tamura Work-in-progress [Page 3]
Internet draft Implementers Guide 14 July 2000
3. Implementation Issues Specific to Simple Mode
3.1 Simple Mode Fax Senders
3.1.1 Multipart/alternative
Although a requirement of MIME compliance (see RFC 2046, Section 5.1.4), some
email client implementations are not capable of correctly processing messages
with a MIME Content-Type of "multipart/alternative". If a sender is unsure if
the recipient is able to correctly process a message with a Content-Type of
"multipart/alternative", the sender should assume the worst and not use this
MIME Content-Type.
3.2 Simple Mode Fax Receivers
3.2.1 Multipart/alternative and Storage Capacity
Devices with little storage capacity are unable to cache previous parts of a
multipart/alternative message. In order for such devices to correctly process
only one part of a multipart/alternative message, such devices may simply use
the first process-able part of a multipart/alternative message. This is viable
because the parts within a multipart/alternative are always sent in least-
fidelity to most-fidelity order.
This behavior means that even if subsequent, higher-fidelity parts may have been
process-able they will not be used.
This behavior can cause user dissatisfaction because when two high-fidelity
but low-memory devices are used with each other, the lowest-fidelity part of
the multipart/alternative will be processed.
The solution to this problem is for the sender to determine the capability of
the recipient and send only high fidelity. However a mechanism to determine the
recipient capabilities priorto an initial message sent to the recipient doesn't
yet exist on the Internet.
After an initial message is sent, the Extended Mode mechanism described in RFC
2532 [3], Section 3.3 enables a recipient to include its capabilities in a
delivery and/or a disposition notification: in a DSN if the recipient device is
an RFC 2532/ESMTP [3] compliant server or in an MDN if the recipient is only an
UA.
Cancio, Moldovan, Tamura Work-in-progress [Page 4]
Internet draft Implementers Guide 14 July 2000
4. Implementation Issues Specific to Extended Mode
4.1 Multipart/Alternative
Sections 3.1.1 and 3.2.1 are also applicable to this mode.
4.2. Correlation of MDN with Original Message
To re-iterate a paragraph from section 2.1, RFC 2298 [9], it is
included here:
A message that contains a Disposition-Notification-To header SHOULD
also contain a Message-ID header as specified in RFC 822 [10]. This
will permit automatic correlation of MDNs with original messages by
user agents.
4.3 Correlation of DSN with Original Message
Similar to the requirement to correlate an MDN, above, DSNs also need to be
correlated. This is best done using the ENVID parameter in the "MAIL"
command. See Sections 3 and 5.4 of RFC 1891 [5] for details.
4.4 Extended Mode Receivers
Confirmation that the facsimile image (TIFF-FX attachment) was delivered and
successfully processed is an important aspect of the extended mode of facsimile
using Internet mail.
4.4.1 Confirmation of receipt and processing from UA Clients
When a message is received with the "Disposition-Notification-To" header and the
receiver has determined if the message is process-able, it may generate a:
a) Negative MDN in case of error, or
b) Positive MDN if requested by the sender.
The advantage of receiving a requested MDN acknowledgement from an Extended Mode
recipient is the indication of success or failure to process the TIFF-FX file
attachment that was sent. The attachment constitutes the facsimile message and
not the body-content of the message. Therefore an Extended Mode sender would
expect, and it is recommended that the Extended Mode receiver will acknowledge
(with an MDN) the success or failure to decode and process the TIFF file
attachment.
Implementers of the Extended Mode [3] should provide consistency in the feedback
provided to senders in the form of error codes and/or failure/successful
messages.
Cancio, Moldovan, Tamura Work-in-progress [Page 5]
Internet draft Implementers Guide 14 July 2000
4.4.1.1 Discrepancies in MDN [9] Interpretation
An Extended Mode sender must be aware that RFC 2298 [9] does not make a
distinction between the success or failure to decode the body-content part of
the message, from the success or failure to decode a file attachment.
Consequently MDNs may be received which do not reflect the success or failure to
decode the attached TIFF-FX file, but rather to decode the body-content part of
the message.
4.4.1.2 Disposition-Type: "dispatched".
The receiver of an MDN request, if it is also an a RFC 2532 compliant device
that automatically prints the received Internet mail messages and attachments,
or forwards the attachment via GSTN fax, should respond with a "disposition-
type: dispatched" when the received message is successfully processed. This
recommendation adheres to the definition in RFC 2298 [9] and helps to
distinguish the returned MDNs for proper handling.
4.4.1.3 "Subject" of MDN in Success and Failure Cases
Because legacy e-mail applications do not parse the machine-readable headers, e-
mail users depend on the human-readable parts of the MDN to recognize the type
of acknowledgement that is received. For the sake of consistency and to help
users visually distinguish a DSN from an MDN returned notification, it is
suggested that the text 'disposition' be used for MDNs in the 'Subject' field.
Example:
Subject: Disposition Notification (MDN) - Successful or
Subject: Disposition Notification (MDN) û Failure
4.4.1.4 "Body" of MDN in Success and Failure Cases
If the receiver of an MDN request is also an RFC 2532 [3] compliant device that
automatically prints the received Internet mail messages and attachments, or
forwards the attachment via GSTN fax, for consistency the following text is
suggested for the body of the message.
In case of success:
"This is a Return Receipt for the mail that you sent to [above, or below, or
here address, etc]. The message and attached file[s] may have been printed,
faxed or saved. This is no guarantee that the message has been read or
understood".
In case if failure:
"This is a Return Receipt for the mail that you sent to [above, or below, or
here address, etc]. An error occurred while attempting to decode the attached
file[s].
[[[Include details on error; and maybe recognize language (of sender) in headers
to send above text in appropriate language. From D.W.]]]
Cancio, Moldovan, Tamura Work-in-progress [Page 6]
Internet draft Implementers Guide 14 July 2000
4.4.2 Extended Mode Receivers that are MTAs (or ESMTP servers)
It is strongly encouraged that SMTP server-based implementations should
implement "SMTP Service Extension for Returning Enhanced Error Codes" [6]. This
standard is easy to implement and it allows detailed standardized success and
error indications to be returned to the sender by the submitting MTA.
The following examples are provided as illustration only. They should not be
interpreted as limiting the protocol or the DSN form. If the examples conflict
with the definitions in the standards (RFC 1891/1893/1894/2034), the standards
take precedence and the examples in this documents should not be used.
4.4.2.1 Success Case Example
In the following example the sender <jean@water.line.com> sends a message to
receiver <ifax@copper.point.com> which is an ESMTP server and the receiver
successfully decodes the message.
SMTP Sequence:
S: 220 copper.point.com SMTP service ready
C: EHLO water.line.com
S: 250-copper.point.com
S: 250-DSN
S: 250 ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES
C: MAIL FROM:<jean@water.line.com> RET=HDRS ENVID=MM123456
S: 250 2.1.0 Originator <jean@water.line.com> ok
C: RCPT TO:<ifax@copper.point.com> NOTIFY=SUCCESS,FAILURE ORCPT=rfc822;
ifax@copper.point.com
S: 250 2.1.5 Recipient <ifax@copper.point.com> ok
C: DATA
S: 354 Send message, ending in <CRLF>.<CRLF>
...
...[[[Replace 'dots' with actual data. From D.W.]]]
...
...
S: 250 2.0.0 Message accepted
C: QUIT
S: 221 2.0.0 Goodbye
Cancio, Moldovan, Tamura Work-in-progress [Page 7]
Internet draft Implementers Guide 14 July 2000
DSN (to jean@water.line.com):
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1999 19:01:57 +0900
From: postmaster@copper.point.com
Message-ID: <19991212190157.01234@copper.point.com>
To: jean@water.line.com
Subject: Delivery Notification (DSN)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=delivery-status;
boundary=JUK199912121854870001
--JUK199912121854870001
Content-type: text/plain;
Your message (id MM123456) was successfully delivered to
ifax@copper.point.com.
--JUK199912121854870001
Content-type: message/delivery-status
Reporting-MTA: dns; copper.point.com
Original-Envelope-ID: MM123456
Final-Recipient: rfc822;ifax@copper.point.com
Action: delivered
Status: 2.1.5 (Destination address valid)
Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 250 2.1.5 Recipient <ifax@copper.point.com> ok
--JUK199912121854870001
Content-type: message/rfc822
(headers of returned message go here)
[[[Replace with actual header data. From D.W.]]]
--JUK199912121854870001--
Cancio, Moldovan, Tamura Work-in-progress [Page 8]
Internet draft Implementers Guide 14 July 2000
4.4.2.2 Failure Case Example 1
In this example the receiver determines it is unable to decode the attached TIFF
file AFTER it has received the SMTP message. The receiver then sends a 'failure'
DSN.
SMTP Sequence:
This is the same as the case a). After the sequence, a decode error occurs at
the receiver, so instead of a 'success' DSN, a 'failure' DSN is sent.
DSN(to jean@water.line.com):
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1999 19:31:20 +0900
From: postmaster@copper.point.com
Message-ID: <19991212193120.87652@copper.point.com>
To: jean@water.line.com
Subject: Delivery Notification (DSN) - Failure
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=delivery-status;
boundary=JUK199912121934240002
--JUK199912121934240002
Content-type: text/plain;
Your message (id MM123456) to ifax@copper.point.com resulted in an error
in attempt to decode the attached file.
--JUK199912121934240002
Content-type: message/delivery-status
Reporting-MTA: dns; copper.point.com
Original-Envelope-ID: MM123456
Final-Recipient: rfc822;ifax@copper.point.com
Action: Failed
Status: 5.6.1 (Media not supported)
Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 554 5.6.1 Decode error
--JUK199912121934240002
Content-type: message/rfc822
(headers of returned message go here)
[[[Replace with actual header data. From D.W.]]]
--JUK199912121934240002--
Cancio, Moldovan, Tamura Work-in-progress [Page 9]
Internet draft Implementers Guide 14 July 2000
4.4.2.3 Failure Case Example 2
In this example the receiver determines it is unable to decode the attached TIFF
file BEFORE it accepts the SMTP transmission. [[[It should be noted that the
results could be the same if instead the receiver could not decode the 'body
content' of the message. D.W. & V.C.]]]
SMTP sequence:
S: 220 copper.point.com SMTP service ready
C: EHLO water.line.com
S: 250-copper.point.com
S: 250-DSN
S: 250 ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES
C: MAIL FROM:<jean@water.line.com> RET=HDRS ENVID=MM123456
S: 250 2.1.0 Originator <jean@water.line.com> ok
C: RCPT TO:<ifax@copper.point.com> NOTIFY=SUCCESS,FAILURE ORCPT=rfc822;
ifax@copper.point.com
S: 250 2.1.5 Recipient <ifax@copper.point.com> ok
C: DATA
S: 354 Send message, ending in <CRLF>.<CRLF>
...
... (the attached file cannot be decoded by receiver)
... [[[Replace 'dots' with actual data. From D.W.]]]
...
C: .
S: 554 5.6.1 Media not supported
C: QUIT
S: 221 2.0.0 Goodbye
DSN:
Note: In this case, the previous MTA generates the DSN that is forwarded to
the original sender. The receiving MTA has not accepted delivery and therefore
can not generate a DSN.
4.4.3 Extended Mode Receivers that are POP3/IMAP4
NOTE: There are no new definitions here in this document. The definitions
of disposition-types and disposition-modifiers are defined in
RFC 2298[9]. This section provides examples on how POP3/IMAP4 devices
may use the already defined values.
Cancio, Moldovan, Tamura Work-in-progress [Page 10]
Internet draft Implementers Guide 14 July 2000
These examples are provided as illustration only. They should not be interpreted
as limiting the protocol or the MDN form. If the examples conflict with the
definitions in the MDN [9] standard, the standard takes precedence and the
examples in this documents should not be used.
4.4.3.1 Success Case Example
If the original sender receives an MDNs which has "displayed", "dispatched" or
"processed" disposition-type without disposition-modifier, the receiver may have
possibly received or decoded the attached TIFF-FX file that it sent. It does not
guarantee that the receiver displays, prints or saves the attached TIFF-FX file
See Section 4.4.1.1, Discrepancies in MDN Interpretation.
NOTE: This example does not include the third component of the MDN.
Date: 14 Dec 1999 17:48:44 +0900
From: ken_recipient@bronze.dot.com
Message-ID: <19991214174844.98765@silver.dot.com>
Subject: Disposition Notification (MDN)
To: mary@silver.dot.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=disposition-notification;
boundary="61FD1001_IFAX"
--61FD1001_IFAX
Content-Type: text/plain
This is a Return Receipt for the mail that you sent to
"ken_recipient@bronze.dot.com". The message and attached files may
have been printed, faxed or saved. This is no guarantee that the
message has been read or understood.
--61FD1001_IFAX
Content-Type: message/disposition-notification
Reporting-UA: ken-ifax.bronze.dot.com; barmail 1999.10
Original-Recipient: rfc822;ken_recipient@bronze.dot.com
Final-Recipient: rfc822;ken_recipient@bronze.dot.com
Original-Message-ID: <19991214174010O.mary@silver.dot.com>
Disposition: automatic-action/MDN-send-automatically; dispatched
--61FD1001_IFAX--
Cancio, Moldovan, Tamura Work-in-progress [Page 11]
Internet draft Implementers Guide 14 July 2000
4.4.3.2 Failure Case Example
If the original sender receives an MDN with an "error" or "warning"
disposition-modifier, it is possible that the receiver could not receive or
decode the attached TIFF-FX file. Currently there is no mechanism to associate
the disposition-type with the handling of the main content body of the message
or the attached TIFF-FX file.
Date: 14 Dec 1999 19:48:44 +0900
From: ken_recipient@bronze.dot.com
Message-ID: <19991214194844.67325@silver.dot.com>
Subject: Disposition Notification (MDN)
To: mary@silver.dot.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=disposition-notification;
boundary="84FD1011_IFAX"
--84FD1011_IFAX
Content-Type: text/plain
This is a Return Receipt for the mail that you sent to
"ken_recipient@bronze.dot.com". A decoding error occurred
in the attached file.
--84FD1011_IFAX
Content-Type: message/disposition-notification
Reporting-UA: ken-ifax.bronze.dot.com; barmail 1999.10
Original-Recipient: rfc822;ken_recipient@bronze.dot.com
Final-Recipient: rfc822;ken_recipient@bronze.dot.com
Original-Message-ID: <199912141823123.mary@silver.dot.com>
Disposition: automatic-action/MDN-send-automatically; processed/error
--84FD1011_IFAX
Content-Type: message/rfc822
[original message goes here]
--84FD1011_IFAX--
Cancio, Moldovan, Tamura Work-in-progress [Page 12]
Internet draft Implementers Guide 14 July 2000
4.4.4 Receiving Multiple TIFF-FX Attachments
A received email message could contain multiple TIFF-FX attachments and each
distinct TIFF-FX file may use different encoding and/or resolution. A received
email message could include TIFF-FX attachment and non-TIFF-FX attachments.
There is currently no mechanism to identify, in a returned notification, the
attachments that were successfully decoded from those that could not be decoded.
If the Extended Mode recipient is unable to decode any of the attached files, it
is recommended that the Extended Mode recipient return a decoding error.
5. Implementation Issues Specific to the File Format
5.1 IFD Placement in TIFF file & Profile S Constraints
Low memory devices, which support resolutions greater than the required Profile-
S may be memory-constrained such that those devices cannot properly handle
arbitrary placement of TIFF IFDs within a TIFF file.
To interoperate with a receiver that is constrained, it is strongly recommended
that senders always place the IFD at the beginning of the TIFF-FX file when
using any of the Profiles defined in RFC 2301.
5.2 Precautions for implementers of RFC 2301 [4]
Interoperability testing of the File Format for Internet Fax [4] yielded useful
information that may help developers avoid the same mistakes.
The following compiled list of TIFF/RFC 2301 [4] errors were encountered during
interoperability testing and is provided so that implementers can take
precautionary measures.
5.2.1 TIFF Readers: Be Cautious with Headers
a) Although Profile S in TIFF-FX requires little-endian, readers
implementing profiles other than Profile S may be constrained and only read
little-endian, even when the specifications permit encoding in both little-
endian and big-endian. Consequently, implementers generating big-endian order
(bytes 0-1 equal to 4D4Dh) should be aware of potential interoperability
problems with such constrained receivers.
b) Do not expect that the byte order (bytes 0-1 of the Image File Header) be
equal to only "II"(4949h) or "MM"(4D4Dh). They should be able to accept other
values and exit gracefully.
c) Do not expect that the "magic number" (bytes 2-3 of the Image File
Header) be equal to 42 (2Ah) -- other values were found during testing.
Cancio, Moldovan, Tamura Work-in-progress [Page 13]
Internet draft Implementers Guide 14 July 2000
d) Be careful of the first IFD offset pointing beyond the end of the TIFF-FX
file.
e) Be aware that the first IFD offset is not always found on a word
boundary.
5.2.2 TIFF Writers: Be Cautious in use of IFD
a) Implementers should be cautious when generating a TIFF profile with a
second or third IFD û make sure that the offsets for the extra IFDs do not point
outside the file.
b) Be careful not to overlap the IFDs with other TIFF profile data such as
strip image data or header data.
c) Be aware that some readers have difficulties handling TIFF profiles with
the following IFD positions: IFD at the end of the profile, IFD intercalated
with another IFD data like XResolution, DateTime, strip image data, etc.
d) Be aware that some legacy readers have difficulties handling profiles
that have child IFDs. There is a high probability that some of these readers
will have trouble accessing all the child IFDs
e) Be aware that some readers do not recognize the GlobalParametersIFD).
5.2.3 IFD Entry Errors
Implementers should make sure when generating a TIFF profile that:
a) All entries exist. Missing entries make it impossible to read the image
data.
b) Tags will not have two types of data (for example SHORT or LONG).
c) Tags do not have the wrong type of data (for example RATIONAL instead of
SRATIONAL).
d) The count of type is correct for a specified tag (it is not null and the
matches the tag ID)
e) Tags appear in the right order in the IFD.
f) Tags as PageNumber or ImageLayer have values that match the number of IFDs
or the image data.
g) Tags are unique within an IFD.
Cancio, Moldovan, Tamura Work-in-progress [Page 14]
Internet draft Implementers Guide 14 July 2000
5.2.4 Strip Errors
Implementers should make sure when generating a TIFF profile that:
a) Strip data is not overlapped with another file data
b) The strip offset does not point outside file
c) The strip length is not null or the strip offset + strip length
does not point outside file
d) There is only one bit order (not more) specified for data storing.
5.2.5 Image Errors
a) Implementers should be cautious when generating a TIFF profile that the
type of image tags and the data from the strip data match. (e.g. If in case of a
B&W image, the PhotometricInterpretation tag value is 0 (bit 0 means white) the
image will appear inverted).
b) Implementers should be cautious when generating a TIFF profile that for
the special color spaces (ITULAB, YCBCR, CMYK) the parameters used for
transformations are correct and compliant to the specification.
c) Implementers should make sure when generating a TIFF profile that the tag
values for XPosition and YPosition are correct.
5.2.6 Profile Specific Errors
a) Implementers should make sure when generating a TIFF profile that all
combinations of tag values are correct. Special attention should be given to the
sets: XResolution, YResolution and ImageWidth and PhotometricInterpretation,
SamplesPerPixel, and BitsPerSample.
b) Implementers should make sure when generating a TIFF Profile M that the
compression used for the layers is correct. Typical errors are for the Mask
layer not be compressed with a black and white compression and the Background
and Foreground layer not to be compressed with a color compression.
6. Security considerations
With regards to this document, Sections 5 in RFC 2305 [2] and Section 4 in RFC
2532 [3] apply.
Cancio, Moldovan, Tamura Work-in-progress [Page 15]
Internet draft Implementers Guide 14 July 2000
7. Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the following persons who contributed or
made comments on earlier versions of this memo:
Dan Wing, Ryuji Iwazaki, Graham Klyne, James Rafferty, Kensuke Yamada, and
Richard Coles.
8. References
[1] RFC 2542, "Terminology and Goals for Internet Fax"
Larry Masinter, Xerox Corporation
March 1999.
[2] RFC 2305, "A Simple Mode of Facsimile Using Internet Mail"
Toyoda, K., Ohno, H., Murai, J. and D. Wing
March 1998.
[3] RFC 2532, "Extended Facsimile Using Internet Mail"
Larry Masinter, Xerox Corporation
Dan Wing, Cisco Systems
March 1999.
[4] RFC 2301 "File Format for Internet Fax", McIntyre, L., Zilles,
S., Buckley, R., Venable, D., Parsons, G. and J. Rafferty,
March 1998.
[5] RFC 1891 "SMTP Service Extension for Delivery Status Notification",
Moore, K., January 1996.
[6] RFC 1893 "Enhanced Mail System Status Codes", Vaudreuil, G.,
January 1996
[7] RFC 1894 "An Extensible Message Format for Delivery Status Notifications",
Moore, K., Vaudreuil, G.,
January 1996
[8] RFC 2034 "SMTP Service Extension for Returning Enhanced Error Codes",
Freed, N.,
October 1996
[9] RFC 2298 "An Extensible Message Format for Message Disposition
Notifications", Fajman, R.
March 1998
[10] RFC 822 "Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet Text Messages",
Crocker. D.,
August 1982
Cancio, Moldovan, Tamura Work-in-progress [Page 16]
Internet draft Implementers Guide 14 July 2000
9. Authors' addresses
Vivian Cancio
Xerox Corporation
Mailstop PAHV-211
3400 Hillview Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94304 USA
Telephone: +1-650-813-7591
Facsimile: +1-650-845-2341
E-mail: vivian.cancio@pahv.xerox.com
Mike Moldovan
G3 Nova Technology, Inc.
2794 Queens Way
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362 USA
Telephone: +1-805-245-4625
Facsimile: +1-805-245-4214
E-mail: mmoldovan@g3nova.com
Hiroshi Tamura
Ricoh Company, LTD.
2446 Toda, Atsugi City,
Kanagawa-Pref., 243-0023 Japan
Phone: +81-46-228-1743
Fax: +81-46-228-7500
Email: tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp
Full copyright statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society 1999. All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain
it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied,
published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction
of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this
paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works.
However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such
as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet
Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the
purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the
procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process
must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages
other than English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
Cancio, Moldovan, Tamura Work-in-progress [Page 16]
Internet draft Implementers Guide 14 July 2000
This document and the information contained herein is provided on
an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Revision history
[[[RFC editor: Please remove this section on publication]]]
Version 2
1) Changed first sentence of 4.4.1.1
2) Added Sections: 4.4.1.2, 4.4.1.3, 4.4.1.4, 4.4.2.1, 4.4.2.2, 4.4.2.3,
4.4.3.1, 4.4.3.2 and 4.4.4
3) Deleted Sections: 6 and 7
4) Changed heading of Section 4.4.1
5) In examples: replaced ifax@water.line.com
with ifax@copper.point.com as well as other editorial changes
in the examples through the document.
6) In examples: changed text in subject field of DSN
7) In examples: changed text in subject field of MDN
8) In examples: changed text in text field of MDN
9) Reworded text through out the document
10) Replaced heading in 5.2.1 [to "TIFF Readers: Be Cautious with Headers"]
11) " " 5.2.2 [to "TIFF Writers: Be Cautious in use of IFD"]
Cancio, Moldovan, Tamura Work-in-progress [Page 17]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 09:45:12 |