But if fax replacement is the goal, my first priority would be the widespread
availability of a secure IPP client, with support for client-side certificates.
This solves the identity/authentication problems without extending the existing IPP
specs. For many applications, you can work around the common document format
problem for now.
-Carl
> RE: ADM - IPP Priorities
>
> From: pmoore@peerless.com
> Date: Tue Jun 20 2000 - 15:19:47 EDT
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> QD is just what you describe (we all said - "hey IPP can do synchronous fax").
> It merely defines the details. THe most important thing it does is to mandate a
> data format (which you must have for guaranteed data exchange) plus it defines a
> way of the client discovering the parameters of that format for a given printer
> (paper size, resolution,..).
> It doesnt define anything new - just defines how they are all put together
> (IPP1, TIFF/FX and CONEG)
> Thats all it does - it aint magic it just crosses the ts and dots the is on what
> we have had in mind all along.
>
> kugler@us.ibm.com on 06/20/2000 11:59:39 AM
>
> To: pwg-ipp@pwg.org
> cc: (bcc: Paul Moore/AUCO/US)
>
> Subject: RE: ADM - IPP Priorities
>
> Call me a simpleton, but I don't understand why Qualdocs has to stand in
> the way of the IPP "Killer App": Fax Replacement. I think IPP/TLS with
> client authentication (using client-side certificates) is at least an 80%
> solution to the fax replacement problem.
>
> Put a SSL or TLS enabled IPP Printer on the Internet and configure it to
> accept job submissions from anyone with a verifiable client-side
> certificate. Have the Printer generate a cover page for each job, listing
> the contents of the senders's X.509 certificate. Now you have a Printer
> that is accessible publicly, but not anonymously. (Or you could restrict
> access by organization or whatever.)
>
> The submitter will need a certificate, but an individual can obtain one
> from a CA like Verisign for about $20/year. This amount might be saved in
> long-distance charges. (Alternatively, an enterprise can set up its own
> CA. Many already have one for other reasons.) The submitter will also
> need a secure IPP client, but it takes equipment or software to send faxes,
> too.
>
> Overall, cheaper, better, and more secure than fax. No need to wait for
> QUALDOCS.
>
> -Carl
>
> Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS@pwg.org on 06/20/2000 11:46:17 AM
>
> Sent by: owner-pwg-ipp@pwg.org
>
> To: "Wagner,William" <bwagner@digprod.com>
> cc: cmanros@cp10.es.xerox.com, pwg-ipp@pwg.org,
> Stuart.Rowley@ktd-kyocera.com
> Subject: RE: ADM - IPP Priorities
>
> Perhaps a vote for Qualdocs is a vote for IPP client. Then, within the
> client discussion there are two separate paths (Qualdocs - i.e. TIFF-FX,
> Coneg and "Full Featured" - i.e. Fonts, UPDF, kitchen sink...) ?? Valid
> way of resolving this?
>
> Harry Lewis
> IBM Printing Systems
>
> "Wagner,William" <bwagner@digprod.com>
> Sent by: owner-pwg-ipp@pwg.org
> 06/20/2000 10:55 AM
>
> To: "'Stuart Rowley'" <Stuart.Rowley@ktd-kyocera.com>,
> "'Manros, Carl-Uno B'"
> <cmanros@cp10.es.xerox.com>
> cc: pwg-ipp@pwg.org
> Subject: RE: ADM - IPP Priorities
>
> I fully agree with Stuart. Qualdocs was not on the original list. I, for
> one, responded before Qualdocs was introduced. It is not clear who is
> considering qualdocs and who is not considering it. Finally, despite the
> appreciated explanations, I am still uncertain what position the PWG has
> with respect to qualdocs, which as far as I see, is still not a chartered
> IETF working group. If we are an unofficial advisory body to a
> non-existent
> working group, I think we must consider what our efforts would consist of
> before we consider priorities. If we have a real opportunity to help
> advance
> the idea of IPP for scanning/fax (by whatever name), I would put the
> importance just below a full featured client (which may be considered to
> include driver and font handling).
>
> William A. Wagner (Bill Wagner)
> Director of Technology
> Imaging Division
> NETsilicon, Inc.
> 781-398-4588
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stuart Rowley [mailto:Stuart.Rowley@ktd-kyocera.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2000 8:03 PM
> To: 'Manros, Carl-Uno B'
> Cc: pwg-ipp@pwg.org
> Subject: RE: ADM - IPP Priorities
>
> In under the wire...
>
> My rankings:
>
> 7 Print Driver Download
> 7 Open Source IPP Client
> 3 Resource Object
> 3 Set 2 Operations
> 1 Production Printing Attributes
> 0 Set 3 Operations
> 0 Document & Page Exceptions
>
> Since Qualdocs was not included in the original vote request and many did
> not include it in their vote, I also omitted it. I suggest polling the
> participants at the next meeting to gauge interest in Qualdocs or redoing
> the email vote with Qualdocs as one of the defined candidates rather than
> as
> a write-in.
>
> Stuart
> Kyocera Technology Development
>
http://www.pwg.org/hypermail/pwg-ipp/0039.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 20 2000 - 16:46:04 EDT