I think that we need to be thinking of QUALDOCS as one of two ways to send
FAX over the Internet. Any client that claims to give users FAX over the
Internet, should be able to send a FAX either using IPP (QUALDOCS) or
Internet FAX (RFCs 2301-2305).
Such a FAX client should have an address book that contains both IPP URLs
and email addresses and uses which ever is indicated for each user. For the
users that have IPP URLs, use QUALDOCs. For the users that have email
addresses, use Internet FAX as specified in RFCs 2301-2305. For the user
that has both, the client could first try IPP. If rejected, it could try
the email address. In other words, QUALDOCs should be sold as a complement
to Internet FAX, not as a replacement!
Then we have a much better chance of selling the idea to the FAX community
and the ITU.
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: Wagner,William [mailto:bwagner@digprod.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 13:44
To: pwg-ipp@pwg.org
Subject: RE: ADM - IPP Priorities
I think the PWG must decide if we are proposing a fax replacement, as Carl
seems to be suggesting, or a non-store and forward internet fax
implementation (which I understand was the Qualdocs objective). In terms of
a specification, these are not the same. There are both technical and
political problems in either path; but I think it would be unwise to assume
that the largely printer oriented PWG properly understands fax, any more
than the fax oriented groups understand printing.
I suggest that this inconsistency in what qualdocs is must be resolved
before the PWG consider its priority.
William A. Wagner (Bill Wagner)
Director of Technology
Imaging Division
NETsilicon, Inc.
781-398-4588
-----Original Message-----
From: pmoore@peerless.com [mailto:pmoore@peerless.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 3:20 PM
To: kugler@us.ibm.com
Cc: pwg-ipp@pwg.org
Subject: RE: ADM - IPP Priorities
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 21 2000 - 12:20:38 EDT