ࡱ> WX  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVYZ[\]^_`abcdefRoot Entry F`~W.CompObjn*WordDocumenttry .ObjectPoolObj9]W.9]W.  FMicrosoft Word 6.0 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.69qࡱ_Oh+'0 D h   @d (C:\MSOFFICE\WINWORD\TEMPLATE\SG8RPT.DOTMeeting Report - Study Group 8Authorized Gateway CustomerAuthܥe3 e@ 3޹޹޹޹޹ 4Z6LǽɽɽɽT[޹ST޹޹6޹޹ǽ\N޹޹޹޹ǽ/ Meeting Report - Study Group 8 February, 1996 This is a report on the meeting of Study Group 8 as held in Geneva, Switzerland from February 6-15, 1996. The focus of this report will be on standards developments related to facsimile technology. The information in this report is prepared specifically for the Multi-Function Peripheral Association by Human Communications. The report begins with an overview of the ITU-T standards process. This information should help readers to gain a better understanding of the remainder of the report. ITU-T Standards Process Study Group 8 is the portion of the International Telecommunications Union Telecommunications Standardization Sector (ITU-T) which has the responsibility for a number of standards activities in what are referred to as telematic services. Facsimile is the best known of these services, but other services such as telex, videotext, file transfer, cooperative document handling and audiographic conferencing are also being addressed. The work within Study Group 8 is allocated to three Working Parties as follows: Working Party A, Working Party C and Working Party T. Each working party has several "questions", which are essentially projects for work. The work in each question is led by a Rapporteur. This report will address matters pertaining to the following questions: Question 1 - Appli/Com Question 4 - Color Fax Question 5 - Group 3 Facsimile Question 8 - Document Transfer and Manipulation Question 9 - Group 4 Facsimile Question 16 - Common Components for Image and Audio Communication Question 19 - Modulation Techniques for Telematic Services The approval process for ITU-T recommendations is referred to as Resolution 1. This process involves the following basic steps: 1. Develop text for a draft recommendation in one of the Questions. 2. When the members of the Question agree that a text is "stable", it may be "determined for Resolution No. 1 approval. This action can only take place at a Study Group plenary or working party meeting. 3. The proposed text for a draft recommendation is submitted in the form of a white contribution at least two months in advance of the next Study Group meeting. The text is then translated into the working languages of the ITU (English, French and Spanish) and circulated among Study Group members. 4. At the next meeting, if all delegates are in agreement, the decision can be made to approve the draft recommendation via Resolution Number 1 procedures. 5. The approved draft recommendations are then sent to ITU member countries for the purpose of conducting a letter ballot. If 70 percent of the votes are in favor, the approval process is complete and the recommendation is then prepared for publication. In practice, no recommendation has ever failed to gain final approval once it has been approved in a decision meeting. There is also a special procedure available at the end of a Study Period to approve documents. In a plenary meeting, a Study Group may vote to send a draft recommendation to the World Standardization Telecommunications Conference (WTSC), where it may be approved by a majority vote. General Business This meeting of Study Group 8 was the last one for the four year Study Period which ends in 1996. As a result, there was substantial discussion at this meeting about the what the philosophy and the structure for the study group should be during the next study period for the years 1997-2000. The chairman of Study Group 8, W. Staudinger, took a strong position during the initial plenary meeting that the direction for the group going forward should be to develop standards which are centered upon doing work on viable products which will be accepted within the marketplace. During the meetings, the main product groups which were identified for future work within Study Group 8 were fax, multi-media conferencing and cooperative document handling (also known as workflow). The Rapporteurs of the current active questions were also responsible for working with their members to make proposals on how the questions should be structured for the next study period and to provide inputs on the proposed scope of work for the new questions. The final decisions on the structure of the questions and the Study Group will be made at the October meeting of the World Telecommunications Standardization Conference (WTSC). Group 3 Facsimile - Question 5 Question 5 addresses standards issues related to Group 3 facsimile. A review of key results by topic follows. Approved Changes to Group 3 Fax Recommendations A series of revisions to the Group 3 fax T.4 and T.30 recommendations were reviewed for potential approval at this meeting. The bulk of the changes involved revisions needed to support V.34 fax operations. The maximum data rate for fax since 1991 has been 14.4 kilobits per second using V.17 modulation. V.34 fax is targeted to support data rates of up to 28.8 kilobits/second during the transfer of fax pages and also support increased rates for fax signaling (1200 or 2400 bits/second for half duplex V.34 fax). There were also amendments to T.4 and T. 30 proposed to eliminate obsolete and unused features such as Group 1 and Group 2 fax, error limiting mode and the optional 2400 BPS signaling mode. Text is also being added as part of a planned phase out of the V.33 method of modulation. In addition, a bit was allocated to permit a fax receiver to state a preference for a 64 octet frame size during fax negotiations. In addition, for consistency, it was necessary to make slight revisions to recommendation T.0 to reflect the deletion of Group 1 and Group 2 fax. The amendments are contained in document Com 8-130. During the meeting of the fax modulation experts of Question 19, the delegates were greatly surprised when it was discovered that the modulation experts of Study Group 14 would be delaying the approval of a collection of planned revisions to the V.34 recommendation. Up until this meeting, all indications were that the amendment to V.34 would be up for approval at the March, 1996 meeting of Study Group 14; however, the chairman of Study Group 14 elected to postpone approval of the amendment to V.34 until the Fall of 1996. The two major features which had been targeted for addition to V.34 in March were (1) Higher data rates for V.34 (up to 33.6 kilobits/second) and (2) Addition of enhancements to the V.34 half duplex mode to provide better fax support. Members of the Question 19 meeting reviewed the situation with V.34 and its potential impact on plans for V.34 fax. As a result, the following agreements were reached. Study Group 8 will proceed with its plan to modify T.4 and T.30 to support V.34 fax. Per the prior plans, the technical amendments to V.34 and V.8 needed to support half duplex V.34 fax operations are to be contained as part of the new Annex F of T.30. At some future point, it is anticipated that these same amendments will be incorporated directly into the V.34 and V.8 recommendations themselves by Study Group 14. Per the prior plans, Annex C of T.30 will be enhanced to enable support for full duplex V.34 fax operations. No related changes to V.34 are required. References to the proposed higher speeds for V.34 (31.2 and 33.6 kilobits/second) remain within Annex F of T.30 amendments and a note was added to the effect that references to speed higher than 28.8 were in approval of such rates anticipated later in 1996. The total set of proposed changes to T.4 and T.30 were consolidated in documents TD3300 (for T.4) and TD3315 (for T.30). The revised T.0 is contained in document Com8-130. These amendments were approved at plenary meeting of Study Group 8 via the Resolution 1 procedure and will be included in the upcoming letter ballot. Proposed Changes to Group 3 Fax Recommendations There were also changes to T.4 and T.30 which were agreed to for determination at this meeting, with approval targeted for the February, 1997 meeting. Proposed changes included the following: A large number of documents were considered for inclusion as proposed amendments to T.4 and T.30 for potential approval in 1997. The proposals address several new extensions to Group 3 fax. A review of the key proposals which were determined at this meeting for potential approval in February, 1997 are shown in the sub-sections below. Fax Security Two ad-hoc groups have been working on proposals to add security into Group 3 fax using the RSA and HKM key management methods since the rapporteurs meeting last fall. It had been agreed in principle that both the RSA public key approach and the HKM private key approach should be supported in fax, pending the delivery of proposals. Both groups delivered proposals to the February SG8 meeting and the details of the proposals were then reviewed by experts on fax security and fax protocols. The key documents introduced at the meeting were as follows: The RSA ad-hoc group produced document D320 which contains a proposal for incorporating security based on the RSA public key management system into Group 3 fax. Due to the amount of information that needs to be exchanged, the contribution included extensions to the T.30 protocol to include the 4 new signals that have been proposed for use with extended G3 negotiations (DER, DES, DEC, DTR) plus an additional signal Digital Not acKnowledge (DNK). In addition, it was proposed that the Facsimile Information Fields of the existing T.30 signals (i.e. DIS, DCS, CSI, etc.) be encapsulated within the new signals. The primary document produced by the HKM/HFX ad-hoc group was D332. This document defines a way to support the HKM key management system, the HFX cipher system and the HFX40-I hashing system. In order to exchange this information, four new T.30 signals were proposed: Transmitter Not Ready (TNR), Transmitter Ready (TR), Transmitter KeYs (TKY) and Receiver KeYs (RKY). An ad-hoc group on Security was convened with Mike Lake of the United Kingdom as chair to review all of the proposals. Agreement was reached on using a common set of new bits within recommendation T.30 to represent fax security capabilities that would be negotiated. However, the details on how to conduct negotiations and way that information is represented for the two security schemes remained quite distinct. The base text for the RSA proposal was revised, resulting in paper D3298rev1 and a corrigendum D3298corr. D332 remained as the base text for the HKM/HFX proposal . The end results were as follows: New draft annexes G and H are proposed to describe the protocol aspects of fax security, based on documents D332 and T3298rev1+T3298corr, respectively. Three new recommendations are proposed to describe various technical aspects of the HKM/HFX method: T.36, T.37 and T.38. The base documents are D337 (T.HKM), D338 (T.HFX40) and D336 (T.HFX40-I), respectively. A summary of all of the documents proposed for Resolution 1 determination is continued in document T3316rev. Action on adding Fax Security to Group 4 fax requires further study. Extensions to Selective Polling, Subaddress and Password There were a number of papers introduced on this topic at both the September Rapporteurs meeting and at this meeting. The key papers introduced at this meeting were as follows. Paper D300 from the United Kingdom proposed that a new frame Field Not Valid (FNV) be created which could be used for reporting invalid or rejected Passwords, Subaddresses or Selective Polling fields. The initial proposal included a bit which could be set for each invalid frame. Paper 360 from Deutsche Telekom proposed a similar concept for a new diagnostic signal (DIA). Paper D359 from Germany proposed that the Password for Transmission be renamed. There were also papers on Application Rules for Password and Selective Polling. Contribution D350 from Germany contained a proposal for such application rules. There had also been a request from Study Group 1 to provide enhanced support for fax database retrieval and related applications. Paper W146 proposed that a new signal End of Selection (EOS) be created to help in the retrieval of multiple files during a single session. Due to the large number of papers, an ad-hoc group was convened to review the various proposals and make recommendations. The charter for the ad-hoc group, which was chaired by James Rafferty of the United States, was to review the available proposals and take steps toward progressing comprehensive solutions in the areas of extensions to selective polling, passwords and subaddresses. Particular attention was paid to requests from Study Group 1 to support fax database retrieval applications. The results were written up in the ad-hoc report, TD3301rev. The report recommended that some new frames be added to T.30 to support new applications and that some changes be made to the use of existing frames. The following proposals were made: Add new frame called FNV (Field Not Valid) - This signal would be used in response to signals such as SUB, PWD and SEP. The facsimile information field of FNV would include bits to indicate that a field was not valid and also have an simple way to provide additional diagnostic information for the signal which had some invalid information. For example, this signal could be used to perform subaddress verification; if the FNV was sent in response to a SUB, an invalid SUB field can be indicated and optionally the exact SUB data which had the problem may also be returned. Add new EOS (End Of Selection) signal - This new signal would be designed to confirm that a document selection which had been requested by an SEP (Selective Polling) signal was now complete. Extend use of the SUB frame for polling applications - Currently, the Subaddress is not available for polling applications. This proposal would permit it to be sent along with the DTC signal. Applications include mailbox retrieval and two-level hierarchical document retrieval. Rename the PWD signal for transmission to SID (Sender IDentification) - Makes the distinction that this signal is intended to identify the person or entity who wants to send information. By contrast, the current TSI (Transmit Station Identification) signal identifies the terminal, not the user. There was solid support for these proposals. The proposed text for the related revisions to T.30 was included as annex A to the ad-hoc report. Color Fax Work has been ongoing for several meetings to add a new color mode for facsimile which is targeted toward palletized color applications. At this meeting, a draft recommendation called T.Palette-colour was reviewed in detail and then determined as document TD104. An editing group was also convened to review the protocol aspects of adding support for colour and gray scale extensions using T.Pallette-colour into Group 3 and Group 4 fax. The editing group produced document TD103, which defines changes to the Group 3 and Group 4 protocols to support this new type of color fax. It had been proposed that several compression methods could be supported, but only JBIG (T.82) was included in the draft developed at this meeting. In summary, the major changes to Group 3 fax which were determined at this meeting were: Support for Fax Security Support for Selective Polling, Password and Subaddress extensions Support for T.Palette-colour extensions All of these changes are targeted for approval at the February, 1997 meeting of Study Group 8. Fax Routing The final review was conducted at this meeting of the draft recommendation T.Routing on Facsimile Routing Utilizing the Subaddress. The document contains application rules which define how to encode and decode information exchanged by facsimile devices using the Subaddress signal of the Group 3 fax T.30 protocol. Applications of this draft recommendation may include routing on Local Area Networks, direct addressing of fax mailboxes and routing to secondary telephone numbers. This work was originated in 1992 and previously had resulted in the approval of a US interim standard IS-141 in the United States in 1994. This work was contributed to the ITU by the US in 1994. Draft recommendation T.Routing had been determined at the prior meeting of March, 1995 and the resulting draft from that meeting was submitted at this meeting as contribution Com8-120. In addition, a short paper D302 was submitted by editor James Rafferty containing small editorial changes. The revisions were accepted and incorporated in the final draft. The draft recommendation was also re-named as T.33. T.33 was then approved as a new recommendation at the plenary meeting of Study Group 8 on February 15. The draft recommendation will be now submitted for letter ballot approval to the member countries, but the technical work is complete. In other business related to fax routing, papers were submitted to enhance two aspects of the use of subaddresses in facsimile: Permit subaddress to be used for polling applications. Provide a way to do verification on the contents of the subaddress field. These proposals were accepted by the Question 5 fax experts and were included among several proposed revisions to T.30 which were determined at this meeting and targeted for potential approval in February, 1997. Fax Programmable Communication Interfaces The new recommendations for Facsimile Programmable Communications Interfaces (PCIs), T.31 (Class 1.0) and T.32 (Class 2.0), were approved last year at the March, 1995 meeting. During that same meeting, amendments were prepared and determined to extend T.31 and T.32 in order to support V.34 fax. Several documents defining these amendments and various editorial changes were introduced at this meeting. The baseline document for the amendments to T.31 is Com8-127. Document D339 from the US proposed that SG8 accept the use of draft Annex A/V.25ter for control of the V.8 portion of sessions, replacing the use of draft Annex C/T.31. The proposal was accepted. Document D357 proposed some editorial and minor technical changes to Annex B/T.31 and was also accepted. The baseline document for the amendments to T.32 is Com8-128. Paper D345 from the United States proposed that the FCLASS used to designate T.32 capable modems be made 2.1, so that they may be distinguished from the previous generation Class 2 modems. This proposal was accepted. There was no opposition to the amendments to T.31 and T.32 at the plenary meeting of Study Group 8, but final approval was deferred since the United States invoked the six week rule, delaying its vote. It has since been confirmed that the US did vote yes on these amendments at the end of March. Therefore, the amendments are approved via Resolution 1 procedure and will be included on the upcoming letter ballot. There was also substantial discussion on the topic of Multi-Function Peripheral Interfaces. Document W150 from the United Kingdom is a specification known as the Computer Fax Protocol (CFP). This paper had been previously introduced at the September Palo Alto Rapporteurs meeting. The MFPI interface standard from the United States (IS-650) had also been introduced at the Palo Alto meeting, but was not re-submitted here. The focus of discussions at this meeting was on whether MFP interfaces are within the scope of Question 5 (Group 3 fax) or even within the scope of the Study Group. Paper D161 from France argued that such interfaces are outside of the scope of the ITU work. Paper D362 from Deutsche Telekom proposed that the work on such interfaces should be done by the fax experts of Question 5 in association with the API experts from Questions 1 and 21. This matter was finally resolved during the discussion on how the work for fax should be structured during the next ITU-T study period for the years 1997-2000. It was agreed that a Facsimile Centered computer interface should be included among the work items. It was agreed that the next steps should be to define what such an interface should provide and should specify. Related contributions are invited for the next meeting. Extended Negotiation Method There were a number of papers introduced at this meeting on the topic of extensions to the framework for Group 3 negotiations. The addition of a series of new frames to the Group 3 fax protocol has been a controversial topic at several meetings during the past two years. Tentative agreement had been reached at the September, 1995 Rapporteurs meeting that a migration path was needed between the traditional DIS extension method and the new negotiations approach which has been proposed. The request had also been made at that meeting to develop a permanent document on new negotiations which would contain sections on the technical proposals made to date and also include background information on the history of the work and the results reached at previous meetings. At this meeting, the permanent document (D340) was introduced by James Rafferty for the US. It included a proposed new draft annex X on extended negotiations and a section of informative material. The term extended negotiations was introduced in place of new negotiations and it was agreed that this was a better description. Most delegates supported the permanent document as an accurate description of the current state of the work, but this was not accepted by the United Kingdom. In another paper (D331), the UK stated that they were not able to accept the results which had been agreed to in the Rapporteurs meeting on this subject. The United States also introduced two papers which proposed technical changes to the Draft Annex X. Due to time constraints, there was minimal discussion or conclusions on these papers. There were also two papers from Japan on the interaction between the extended negotiations proposals and the fax installed base. Paper W173 summarized a survey of existing fax terminals on whether it was feasible to permit any new frames (such as the DES proposed in extended negotiations) to be included in the DIS frame grouping. The conclusion was that a (DES) DIS frame sequence would cause a problem with many existing implementations, even though T.30 technically would allow for it. Paper D305 from Japan adds further comments on the issue of direct entry. The group accepted this conclusion and the permanent document will be modified to eliminate the direct entry method for entering extended negotiations. Since the UK was not willing to accept the permanent document in its current form, the decision was made to split the document into two separate documents on (1) Protocol and (2) Background Information. The next steps for the project were agreed to as follows: Re-define the Objectives Describe how to enter the extended negotiation method Define the negotiation method, using the current documents as appropriate Define the criteria by which the extended negotiation method will be accepted Further contributions are invited. Mobile Fax At the March, 1995 meeting of SG8, agreement had been reached to determine amendments to the T.35 recommendation which included the addition of an annex to create a new class of NSF provider codes for the use of network providers. The text for the amendments is in document W176 from T.35 editor Harold Hertlein. At this meeting, papers D299 from the United Kingdom and D306 from France opposed the approval of these amendments at this time. There was concern that the changes would encourage the removal of NSF codes of all kinds and that there were no application rules included concerning how network providers would be eligible for an NSF code. The proposed amendments were discussed again during the plenary meeting, but no agreement could be reached. As a result, the proposals were not approved. Fax Testing/Quality of Service Several papers were reviewed on subjects of fax testing and quality of service. The meeting report for the Tests for G3 Facsimile activity is in document TD3330. Post Dialing Delay Documents W126 from the Post Dialing Delay ad-hoc group reviewed the issue of Post Dialing Delay. An ad-hoc group was convened and chaired by Jean-Luc Grimault on the subject. The group created document TD 3335 on potential solutions for perceived problems. The basic issue concerns delays which can occur between the time a fax call is placed and when the actual connection takes place. In various situations, delays of up to 90 seconds may occur before a connection is made; in the vast majority of cases, the connection is made in less than 60 seconds. The proposal which emerged includes the following elements: A new timer T0 would be defined with a timing of 90 seconds +/- 30 seconds. Timer T0 would begin once dialing was complete. Timer T1 would begin upon reception of either a CED/ANSam signal or V.21 channel 2 modulation. Timer T0 would stop once timer T1 is initiated. The calling side would clear a call when either T0 or T1 elapsed without the proper reposes. It was felt that this solution would solve the Post Dialing Delay problem with minimal impact on the installed base. Grimault was directed to draft proposed amendments to T.30 to implement the solution. Effect of Echo and Delay Document W126 summarized work which had been done since the March, 1995 meeting on the effect of echo and delay on fax transmissions. Further work was reflected in document TD3336, which summarized the results of an ad-hoc group chaired by K. Halton of the United Kingdom. The main conclusions were: T.30 specifies that the lowest receive level should be -43dBm. It is recommended that signals below this level be ignored to reduce the possibility of mistakenly acting upon an echoed signal. It is suggested that echo protect tones be used with V.29 to reduce potential international fax problems with this modulation. This would require an echo protect tone to be defined for V.29. Further contributions are required. Voice and Fax There were several papers introduced concerning ways to combine voice and fax. At the Palo Alto meeting, a proposal from AT&T on how to implement simultaneous voice and fax had been introduced and accepted as a basis for further work. The original paper was re-introduced as document W158 at a joint meeting of Questions 5 (Group 3 fax) and 19 (modulation techniques) at this meeting. Document D349 from the United States is a marked up version of the draft which adds support for the Digital Simultaneous Voice and Data (DSVD) method which has been proposed for standardization within Study Group 14. There were some questions raised on whether this is a viable product concept and on how stable the work really is in light of the various types of multi-media platforms under study within the ITU. Currently, there are four multimedia platforms for low bit rate telephony being studied within the ITU: symbol 183 \f "Symbol" \s 10 \h Simultaneous Analog Coded Voice and Data (SG14) symbol 183 \f "Symbol" \s 10 \h Simultaneous Digital Coded Voice and Data (SG14) symbol 183 \f "Symbol" \s 10 \h PSTN Videophone (SG15) symbol 183 \f "Symbol" \s 10 \h Mobile Videophone (SG15) Document T3319 is an updated draft of the T.SVF proposal. It was proposed for determination under Resolution 1 in the Question 5 meeting, but since there was some dissent based on concerns about stability, the draft was not determined at this meeting. In addition, Herman Silbiger and Istvan Sebestyen were appointed as co-editors for the work going forward. New Fax Question for Next Study Period Paper W153 from the chairman of Working Party T, Alan Pugh, contained proposals on how the work in facsimile standards should be structured for the next study period. However, Pugh reconsidered this paper in light of the comments made by SG8 chairman Staudinger about the need for a product orientation going forward. The basic change would be to continue the fax work under a single question, but to have different sub-groups which would be responsible for individual aspects such as Group 3, Group 4 and Quality of Service. Under this structure, work currently done by Question 19 on modulation techniques would be incorporated within the new fax question. The Question 5 rapporteur, Bernard Revillet, convened an ad-hoc group to work on the scope of the fax question. The final results were contained in document T3299rev2. The two major domains (work areas) are: (1) Extension of Facsimile Facilities and (2) Quality of Service. The extension of facsimile facilities included a list of bullet items. The needs for new facilities were addressed by the following items: - definition of service and new usage of facsimile - connection to new networks - new modulation schemes - new coding schemes The final decisions on the structure of the questions will be made at the October meeting of the World Telecommunications Standardization Conference (WTSC). Modulations for Telematic Services - Question 19 The main focus of the Question 19 meeting on the Modulations for the Telematic Services was on preparing changes to the Group 3 fax recommendations to enable support for the new high speed V.34 fax modulation. This work has already been reviewed in the section on modifications to T.4 and T.30. A review of other topics and results from this meeting is addressed below. The meeting report for Question 19 is in document TD3312Rev1. The report from the joint meeting of Question 5 and Question 19 is in document TD3306. As noted previously, future work on modulations related to fax will be done within the fax question. During the joint meeting on modulation, document W129 was introduced on Changes to Recommendation T.90 needed for V.34 full duplex fax. This document supersedes document W119 on the same subject. The updated document was approved at the Study Group 8 plenary meeting and will be included among those documents circulated in the upcoming letter ballot. Group 4 Facsimile - Question 9 Various changes were approved at this meeting for the recommendations which govern Group 4 facsimile. A small amendment was made to Recommendation T.563 to account for the deletion of Classes 2 and 3 from Group 4. This document (TD 3314) will be submitted to the October meeting of the WTSC for approval. There were also proposals on adding security into Group 4, but it was decided that there was more work required to determine how to incorporate these elements into the Group 4 protocol. The requirements for adding support for the T.Pallette-colour extensions were reviewed in document TD103. This document was determined at this meeting and it will be considered for approval at the next meeting. Future work on Group 4 fax will be done in the fax question. Common Components for Image and Audio Compression - Question 16 The main focus of the Question 16 meeting was on gaining agreement on reviewing action items which resulted from various joint meetings. The overall question 16 meeting was held in conjunction with ISO/IEC JTC1 SC29 WG1, which is the ISO/IEC group which does standards work on compression methods. A summary of key results from the meeting is contained below. An ad-hoc group prepared an amendment to Recommendation T.85 as contained in document TD0098rev. T.85 is a profile on how to use the T.82 recommendation (on the JBIG compression method) within facsimile. The new document contains an annex which shows how to use the NEWLEN marker segment for the base case of multiple stripes per fax page and for the optional case of one stripe per page. The NEWLEN marker is used in JBIG encoding for cases where the length of a page is not known in advance. It is noted that the one stripe method is risky in some cases. It was decided during the Plenary meeting that this amendment to T.85 would be forwarded for approval to the WTSC meeting in October. The latest draft of the T.84 (enhancements to the JPEG compression method) was reviewed as document TD2221. T.84 is a joint text with ISO/IEC 10918-3. The ISO version of this document was approved at the SC29 November meeting. Key new capabilities included within this document are the extension of JPEG to handle additional special cases such as tiling and selective refinement, plus the development of a new Still Picture Image File Format that is known as SPIFF. SPIFF may turn out to be a rather significant file format, since it provides support for all of the commonly used fax compression method ranging from the traditional compression methods contained in T.4 (Modified Huffman and Modified Read) and T.6 on up to the latest methods found in T.81 (JPEG) and T.82 (JBIG). The group is working with the ITU to develop a way to distribute information about SPIFF including some freeware code and examples via a Web site. The final version of the T.84 document was approved via Resolution 1 at the SG8 plenary and will be included on the upcoming letter ballot. Binary File Transfer - Question 8 There were a few changes addressed at this meeting for the T.434 recommendation on Binary File Transfer at this meeting. Additional changes to T.434 were proposed in document D249. These changes address corrections and minor technical changes to T.434. The most significant proposed change is to change the description of the "document-type-name" within the Contents-Type attribute to be an Object Identifier. The current syntax references Contents-Type as an Object Identifier in a slightly different way. It was also proposed that the use of EXTERNAL data types for the Private use and Data format attributes be changed to use the ANY data type instead. It was agreed at this meeting to propose these changes for Resolution 1, with approval targeted for February, 1996. Revisions to recommendation T.434 Binary File Transfer Format for the Telematic Services were reviewed at this meeting. It had been proposed at the March, 1995 meeting that clarifications were needed to the syntax which defines the T.434 transfer format. Some initial text was determined at that time. In August, 1995, James Rafferty submitted a proposal to the TR-29 fax committee to make a small revision to the T.434 syntax to permit the optional use of Object Identifiers (OIDs) in the Application Reference field. One of the main reasons for this proposal was to revise the use of the Application Reference field in T.434 to technically align it with the syntax used for the same field used in X.400 file transfers under the auspices of the EMA Message Attachment Working Group (MAWG). The major benefit would be to permit BFT applications to take advantage of Object IDs that have been registered by EMA member companies for the file types generated by popular software applications. The proposal was edited with the assistance of T.434 editor Herman Silbiger for AT&T and then the updated proposal was accepted as a US delayed contribution to SG8. There was additional work done at this meeting to incorporate all of the proposed revisions, including the revisions related to the Application Reference, within an updated version of T.434. Document TD0081 from the rapporteur Dr. Hans-Detlef Schulz included a clarification on how the BFT diagnostic message should be used when mapped for use with different protocols. The key point is that the protocols using the diagnostic messages need to make provisions to support a one octet field which uniquely defines the values of the different diagnostic messages. The request was made that the FDM signal within Group 3 fax should be modified to support this refinement. Notes were added to the current draft of T.434 to address this clarification. The members of the file transfer experts group accepted all of the revisions, but the edited document was not in final form until the end of the day before the plenary meeting. The updated version of recommendation T.434 (document DT 1178Rev) was then approved at the plenary meeting of Study Group 8 and will be included on the upcoming letter ballot. A new proposal D316 was also introduced by France Telecom to add new capabilities to a future version of T.434 to support features such as management and archiving documents and an extended recipient field. These topics will be considered in the next study period beginning in 1997 and possibly at an interim meeting. The work on Binary File Transfer will continue, but will be done in conjunction with the activity on Cooperative Document Handling, which is currently Question 15. Programmable Communication Interfaces - Question 1 This activity is focused upon the development of standard software programming interfaces in support of telecommunications services and is addressed under Question 1, APPLI/COM. The ITU-T refers to APIs as Programmable Communications Interfaces. This question has dealt with the T.611 APPLI/COM APIs. Due to lack of industry support to date, the work of this question is being halted at this point. No further recommendations were progressed at this meeting. There is more API work that may be done for telematic services, but the status of future related API work in the ITU will not be finalized until the WTSC meeting in October, since there are many varying opinions from various delegations on this matter. Color Fax - Question 4 Question 4 of Study Group 8 considers standards related to color fax. The meeting report for this meeting is contained in document TD2263. The main results of this meeting pertained to the areas of "soft copy" color fax and future plans for a new type of color fax based on the T.82 JBIG recommendation. Recommendation T.42 has previously been approved as the approach for continuous tone color facsimile. An approach which uses T.42 and the T.81 JPEG recommendation has previously been approved for use with Group 3 and Group 4 facsimile. The existing T.42 is tailored to the requirements for hard copy continuous tone facsimile applications and specifies use of the CIELAB color space for these purposes. At this meeting, paper Com 8-143 from a T.42 editing group proposed ways in which recommendation T.42 could be extended to also support soft copy applications. As a result of arguments raised in this paper and subsequent discussion, the current consensus is that the CIELAB color space should also be used for the cases of soft copy color communications and for palletized color applications. For interworking between hard copy and soft copy communications, the delegates believe the existing T.42 specification can be used, since gamut mapping is an implementation matter which is beyond the scope of T.42. An updated version of this document with minor editorial changes was re-submitted as document TD-2245. It was agreed during the plenary meeting that this document would be submitted to the WTSC meeting in October, 1996 for approval. The work required to add support for lossless coding of colour and gray scale documents also took place within this group. The base set of documents which resulted after additional editing are TD-103 (proposed amendments to Group 3 and Group 4 fax recommendations to add support for T.Palette-colour) and TD-104 (draft T.Palette-colour). As noted previously, these documents were determined at the plenary meeting under Resolution 1 procedure and will be targeted for approval at the February, 1997 meeting of SG8. In new business, paper D-317 from France Telecom on the coding of facsimile pages with heterogeneous contents was introduced. It was proposed to study ways to code pages using multiple coding methods on the same page. It was noted that none of the current compression methods do a good job on all types of images and that it would be useful to have better ways to encode mixed pages with both text and complex images efficiently on the same page. It was agreed to review the issues in an ad-hoc group on Mixed Raster Content Pages chaired by Lloyd McIntyre of Xerox. In the ad-hoc group, the D-317 proposal was reviewed along with an example contained in a working document WD Q4-1. The example considers a way to gain efficiency benefits by dividing a page into horizontal stripes. For example, in a page which has text on the top and continuous tone image to follow could have the first stripe be coded using T.6 bi-level coding and the next stripe be coded using T.81 JPEG for the continuous tone portion. The paper also proposes that mixed stripes would also be possible, where multiple layers are possible (for example, text over image). It was agreed to conduct studies on this base case candidate and any other candidate approaches during the time before the next meeting of Question 4. ITU-T Study Group 8 Report for MFPA  PAGE 2  rrrrࡱ> SummaryInformation(orized Gateway Customer@6qU.@Y@.@0Microsoft Word 6.031## $ $==D?N?HHffmmmmmmmm'n(nGnInanbnnnۉ 1239:;<?@^uP uDPuDU]VUc+ 012{|&>?{|MNe|. i j 0 + HIi|}IJjk&&K&K&K&&&&&K&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&K&&&&&&&&K&&&+/0su v !!!!"" $ $$$ &&M&N&((6*7*,,,,?-....///&F& && &&&&&&&&&&&&F&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&7+//11F3G3:5<56676}8?9]:;;<<'<(< ? ?g?h?????M@N@[@\@ C CDDEE#F$F&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& &&&&&%&%&%&&&&F&&&&&&&&& h 4h&$F]FFFGGGGJJKK}M~M/O0OPPRRRRUUcXdX[[\\]]]R]&&&&&&F& &&&&&&&&&&&&&F& &&&& &&&&&&&& 4h.   4h.!R]]]]^^^^[_\_``KaLamanabb(b)badbdddd eeeffffff&&&&&&F&&&&&&&&F&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& h 4h. 4h.!f.h/hhiiiiiimmm'nannn pp5p6prr}t~ttttttuuu&&&&&&&&F& &&&&&&&&&&F&&&&&&&&&&&&K&Fh h 4h. h 4h. uExFxyyy{ {||}}~~ÀĀNO&'VWғӓ˔̔XY&&&&K&&&&&&K&&&&&&& &&&&K&&&&&&& &&&&&&K&&&&&K&&& &&h,Yޜߜ67)* '012=>?@&&&&&&&&&&K&K&K&&K @ Normal ]a c$@$ Heading 1Uc&@& Heading 2xUVc&@& Heading 3U]"A@"Default Paragraph Font"@" Normal Indent/@Listh]Z1@Z List Number@ h 4h. @" Header ! @2 Footer !)@A Page Number@@!           + u?*}5e?}J#W_Nir}@  1 y  e _&25^S/$FR]fuY@TUVWXYZ[jjjjjj'kGkHkakkk@9999&-/5!/Authorized Gateway Customer(C:\MSOFFICE\WINWORD\DOCS\ITU\SG89602.RPTAuthorized Gateway Customer)C:\MSOFFICE\WINWORD\DOCS\ITU\PBITU963.RPTAuthorized Gateway Customer)C:\MSOFFICE\WINWORD\DOCS\ITU\PBITU963.RPTAuthorized Gateway Customer)C:\MSOFFICE\WINWORD\DOCS\ITU\BKITU962.RPTAuthorized Gateway Customer)C:\MSOFFICE\WINWORD\DOCS\ITU\BKITU962.RPTAuthorized Gateway Customer)C:\MSOFFICE\WINWORD\DOCS\ITU\BKITU962.RPTAuthorized Gateway Customer(C:\MSOFFICE\WINWORD\DOCS\ITU\MFPA962.RPTAuthorized Gateway Customer(C:\MSOFFICE\WINWORD\DOCS\ITU\MFPA962.RPT@HP DeskJet 500LPT1:HPDSKJETHP DeskJet 500@f,,@MSUDHP DeskJet 500dHP DeskJet 500@f,,@MSUDHP DeskJet 500d99 99ZTimes New Roman Symbol &Arial"HelvArialw1Courier 10 Pitch"V 7]g'C:\MSOFFICE\WINWORD\TEMPLATE\SG8RPT.DOTMeeting Report - Study Group 8Authorized Gateway CustomerAuthorized Gateway Customerࡱ>