At 04:45 PM 10/29/1999 -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
> > Basically I am suggesting that future definitions of "contact info" for
> > internet protocols and standards should include the "print-to" URL. Why
> > not?
>>i would ask rather why is it *necessary*?
>>i reverse the question because otherwise we end up with an enormous mess,
>as opposed to the relatively lean machine which has been the key to our
>success.
Well if you look at the development of IPP and its current level of
support, which is very substantial and growing every day, and the general
theory that fax at a sufficient level of abstraction is "remote printing"
then a "print-to" URL based on IPP is necessary.
Some of us believe that the concept of "fax" is multi-modal. GSTN T.30
analog, RFC 2305 S&F, IPP...take your pick...if you must get a document
from point A to point B, which is a essential global communications
service, .. you now have a choice ...and choice is good. That is the goal
of QUALDOCS. Therefore references to the various transport layer
opportunities in a "phone book" is useful.
And I might add some of us are ready to put IPP addresses on our business
cards as soon as we can figure out how to get our DSL providers to install
a working service, much less route the packets correctly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Richard Shockey
Shockey Consulting LLC
8045 Big Bend Blvd. Suite 110
St. Louis, MO 63119
Voice 314.918.9020
eFAX Fax to EMail 815.333.1237 (Preferred for Fax)
INTERNET Mail & IFAX : rshockey at ix.netcom.com
GSTN Fax 314.918.9015
MediaGate iPost VoiceMail and Fax 800.260.4464
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<