Bill,
On Sep 17, 2014, at 2:33 PM, William A Wagner <wamwagner at comcast.net> wrote:
> Michael,
>> I understand your reasoning but wonder about:
> 1. FaxIn where the modem is in the Cloud (and therefore setting AvailableFaxInJobTicket via the modeled Cloud Service management interface is valid), but the fax is printed out on as associated Local FaxIn Service.
The FaxIn service definition for this sort of action uses a destination. It would make a lot more sense to direct the hardcopy to the Cloud Print service associated with the Local Print service than it would to make a Local FaxIn service responsible for delivery/disposition of documents received from the Cloud, assuming we ever had a binding protocol implementing FaxIn.
> 2. FaxOut where the modem is in the Cloud but input includes scanned copy provided by a Local FaxOut service.
> It would seem that both of these cases span.
But in that case the local FaxOut service is talking directly to the Cloud - the Proxy isn't involved for purposes of our model.
> Bill Wagner
>> From: Michael Sweet [mailto:msweet at apple.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 1:49 PM
> To: William A Wagner
> Cc: Ira McDonald; cloud at pwg.org; Semantic Model 3.0 Workgroup discussion list
> Subject: Re: [Cloud] [SM3] Cloud FaxIn Service
>> Bill,
>> The Cloud Service Management Operations are directed to the Cloud service and only manage the Cloud service. We don't relay them through the Proxy to the Local service and have no way to do so in the current model - all out of scope for a long time. Similarly, there is no way to remotely manage the Proxy - out of scope.
>> All client-initiated job-based services that span between the Cloud and Local services are in scope for the Cloud Imaging Requirements and Model:
>> - FaxIn does not span and jobs are not client-initiated. It should be out of scope.
>> - FaxOut MAY span and has client-initiated jobs. Cloud-based FaxOut through a Local service should be in scope. Purely Cloud FaxOut (with the fax modem in the cloud too) is the same as SM FaxOut and should be out of scope. Similarly, FaxOut from the Local Device should be out of scope since either a) the Cloud isn't involved or b) it *is* involved in some way, but not using the interface in this document.
>> - Print spans and has client-initiated jobs. It should be in scope.
>> - Resource does not span and has no jobs. It should be out of scope.
>> - Scan spans and has client-initiated jobs. If should be in scope.
>> - Transform does not span. It should be out of scope.
>>>> On Sep 17, 2014, at 1:23 PM, William A Wagner <wamwagner at comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Michael,
>> Actually, I believe at your suggestion, we did add Cloud Service Management Operations. 46 to the Model, including the SetServiceElements operation that (I suggest) defines incomming facsimile handling. However, I do get the sense that there is no interest in including FaxIn so unless someone suggestst that it is desirable, I will eliminate it. We are, of course, rethinking things we had settled some time ago. Any other Services we should drop? What about CloudFaxOut? CloudScan?
>> Thanks,
> Bill Wagner
>>>>> From: cloud-bounces at pwg.org [mailto:cloud-bounces at pwg.org] On Behalf Of Michael Sweet
> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 11:44 AM
> To: Ira McDonald
> Cc: cloud at pwg.org; Semantic Model 3.0 Workgroup discussion list
> Subject: Re: [Cloud] [SM3] Cloud FaxIn Service
>> My $0.02 CAD - Cloud FaxIn is out-of-scope, not only because of prototyping but because remote management is out of scope already (as Bill points out) and any local-to-Cloud push of incoming faxes sure looks a lot like a regular client-to-Cloud interaction that we don't need to be involved in...
>>> On Sep 16, 2014, at 4:19 PM, Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi Bill,
>> We *did* define in complete detail how a set of available job tickets are
> configured on a FaxIn service and how they are selected - and all of
> this is in SM schema and the most recent FaxIn draft.
>> BUT - I strongly urge that we *not* put FaxIn into Cloud Model, because
> the IPP WG has decided (and written into their charter a year ago) that
> they will *not* do an IPP FaxIn service - no protocol binding to satisfy the
> PWG prototype requirement.
>> Cheers,
> - Ira
>>> Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
> Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
> Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
> Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
> Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WG
> IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
> Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
>http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic>http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc> mailto: blueroofmusic at gmail.com> Winter 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176 734-944-0094
> Summer PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 906-494-2434
>>> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 4:07 PM, William A Wagner <wamwagner at comcast.net> wrote:
> In working on the Cloud spec, we decided that Resource, Transform, and Copy
> Services were not to be considered. EmailIn and Email Out services we to be
> dropped from the Semantic Model entirely. That left Print, Scan, FaxOut and
> FaxIn Cloud services that might involve connection to a 'local' service.
>>>> FaxIn remains an unusual service in that it does not involve an explicit
> CreateJob or, indeed, any specific Job-related communication with a User. It
> may involve creation of a user-specific FaxInAvailableJobTicket, which
> defines how an incoming Fax is to be handled. In the MFD Model, I don't
> think we ever defined how a FaxInAvailableJobTicket was provided to a FaxIn
> Service. Conceptually, it could be either be via some out of band
> management operation, or possible a SetFaxInJobElements or a
> SetFaxInServiceElements operation. Presumably SetFaxInServiceElements makes
> the most sense, understanding that there will typically be multiple
> FaxInAvailableJobTickets with different Imaging Metrics.
>>>> The interface to a FaxIn Service is therefore most reasonably an
> administrative operation.
>>>> The rationale for a Cloud FaxIn service is shaky but probably as valid as
> for a Cloud FaxOut service: Fax Modems could be in the Cloud or 'Local";
> incoming fax destinations can be local or in the cloud. Therefore, although
> the User Client to Cloud Service connection would just be administrative,
> incoming facsimile messages to a Cloud FaxIn Service may require creating a
> Job that is sent to a local FaxIn Service (although it could be just a
> print Service or a storage service). Incoming facsimile messages to a Local
> FaxIn Service could require both notification and upload of the facsimile
> message to a Cloud FaxIn Service, although such transfers could be out of
> band from the model. Presently, we have not provided any mechanism for the
> Proxy to create a job in the Cloud Service (do we want to?)
>>>> So.long story short, should we:
>> 1. Drop FaxIn from the Cloud Model
>> 2. Allow a Cloud FaxIn Service to create a Job from an incoming Fax,
> and then relay the fax data to a Local FaxIn Service for printing and/or
> local storage
>> 3. Also allow a LocalFaxIn Service to create a Job from an incoming
> Fax and relay the fax data to a Cloud FaxIn service for storage?
>>>> There are also some parallel questions for FaxOut. Should the Cloud
> Model consider:
>> A. Just configurations where the Fax Modem is 'Local' (fax transmitted
> and locally generated from locally scanned hardcopy and/or Digital Data
> obtained by the local FaxOut (or Proxy) Service or Digital Data pulled from
> the Cloud FaxOut Service.)
>> B. Also configurations where the Fax Modem is in the Cloud (fax
> generated from uploaded locally scanned hardcopy and/or uploaded Digital
> Data obtained by the local FaxOut or Proxy, or Digital Data otherwise
> accessed by the Cloud FaxOut Service.
>>>> It might be noted that whatever we decide, FaxIn should be addressed in the
> SM3 specification.
>>>> Many thanks for your consideration.
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> sm3 mailing list
>sm3 at pwg.org>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/sm3>> _______________________________________________
> cloud mailing list
>cloud at pwg.org>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud>> _________________________________________________________
> Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
>>> _________________________________________________________
> Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
>
_________________________________________________________
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/cloud/attachments/20140917/00e3f08f/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4881 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/cloud/attachments/20140917/00e3f08f/attachment.p7s>