On the second issue, I believe the original issue from the minutes was
whether to use the IPP/1.1 terminology for IPPFAX Sender and IPPFAX
Receiver, which would be IPPFAX Client and IPPFAX Printer, not IPPFAX Host.
To me the term Host is much too vague. To me a Host could be a sender or a
receiver.
So I'm quite opposed to using the term "Host". Whether to continue using
the IPPFAX terms Sender and Receiver or go back to the IPP/1.1 terms of
Client and Printer is harder to decide. If we go back to the IPP Client and
Printer terms we would make it clear that the term Printer means the
software entity that accepts requests and returns responses, as in IPP, and
need not actually have any hardware associated at all. The advantage of the
term Receiver, is that no hardware is suggested by the name.
However, the problem with using the term "receiver" is that it affects the
names of some of the attributes ("receiver" vs. "printer"). Also we are
stuck with the IPP/1.1 terminology of Printer Description attributes and the
'printer-description' attribute group name used as a keyword in the
Get-Printer-Attributes request.
The attribute names affected are:
5.1 <outbind://6/#_Toc515389244> ippfax-sending-user-identity
(text(MAX)) operation/Job Description attribute 9
5.2 <outbind://6/#_Toc515389245> ippfax-receiving-user-identity
(text(MAX)) operation/Job Description attribute 9
5.3 <outbind://6/#_Toc515389246> ippfax-sender-identity
(name(255)) operation/Job Description attribute 10
5.4 <outbind://6/#_Toc515389247> ippfax-receiver-identity
(name(255)) Printer Description attribute 10
We should still keep the terms Sending User and Receiving User, but we could
change the terms Sender to Client and Receiver to Printer.
Then the attributes would be named:
5.1 <outbind://6/#_Toc515389244> ippfax-sending-user-identity
(text(MAX)) operation/Job Description attribute 9
5.2 <outbind://6/#_Toc515389245> ippfax-receiving-user-identity
(text(MAX)) operation/Job Description attribute 9
5.3 <outbind://6/#_Toc515389246> ippfax-client-identity
(name(255)) operation/Job Description attribute 10
5.4 <outbind://6/#_Toc515389247> ippfax-printer-identity
(name(255)) Printer Description attribute 10
Comments?
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: John Pulera [mailto:jpulera@minolta-mil.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 09:45
To: IPP-Fax Group
Subject: IFX> some UIF issues...thoughts anyone?
While revising the UIF spec, some issues have surfaced and it would be great
if we can generate some discussion on them:
1) The MIME type for UIF data.
From the IPPFAX teleconferences held on May 30 & June 6, there was
consensus to use "image/tiff; application=faxbw" and "image/tiff;
application=faxcolor". The primary argument for using these was that it is
the same MIME type used for Internet Fax, and so there would be less of a
conformance issue with an IPPFAX device serving as a gateway for Internet
Fax documents.
However...If we are going to make UIF a protocol-independent data
format (which was also agreed at the May 30 telecon), I do not think think
we should directly associate it with Internet Fax. Perhaps "image/tiff;
application=uif" would be a better compromise in that UIF would be made
independent of Internet Fax while existing TIFF readers can still do
something with the UIF data.
In addition, is it valid to use the same MIME type as Internet Fax
if the data requirements for UIF and TIFF-FX are not identical? (TIFF-FX is
more strict with resolutions and allowed image widths)
2) The use of the terms "Client" to mean the "Sender" and "Host" to mean the
"Receiver".
Is "Client" interchangeable with "Sender" and "Host" with "Receiver"?
Should we be using the more generic terms "Client" and "Host" instead of
"Sender" and "Receiver" in the UIF spec since the UIF spec is NOT
protocol-specific?
Does anyone have any thoughts on these issues?
Thanks,
John
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 18 2001 - 16:56:42 EDT