I don't see the distinction (fax replace vs. non-store and forward ifax).
Fax is like... (caution... oversimplification filter)...
1. You select a destination (phone), scan something and it comes out at
the other end. (Has to be massive majority of use... right?... THE major
fax paradigm).
2. You direct the output of an application to a simulated printer (driver)
which renders a fax suitable format (as if it was scanned) and
programmatically manages delivery to your selected destination.
3. Then there's stuff like dist lists, economical transfer of files via
(Internet) with local fax distribution etc.
Sure... I'm oversimplifying and heating up any fax oriented experts
reading the list...
But, how is Qualdocs different from fax replacement, then? If you scan a
(color) document to TIFF or PDF and "IPP" that to a printer, haven't you
fulfilled fax paradigm (1)? If your application generates TIFF or PDF and
sends it to a IPP URL... isn't that (2)? Dist lists etc seem just as
feasible with IPP as they do with FAX.
Perhaps as Bill suggests... I (being part of the print oriented PWG) just
don't understand FAX. I'm sure the fax experts can articulate all the
nuances. I think that above represents what most USERS know about fax,
however!
Harry Lewis
IBM Printing Systems
"Wagner,William" <bwagner@digprod.com>
Sent by: owner-pwg-ipp@pwg.org
06/20/2000 02:43 PM
To: pwg-ipp@pwg.org
cc:
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 - 12:41:25 EDT