Thank you for your response.
Perhaps I misunderstand you on the first point. Although the Semantic Model fully identifies the form of an AvailableJobTicket, as far as I can see neither it nor the FaxIn draft indicates how AvailableJobTickets are communicated to the Service. The FaxIn draft indicates that FaxInJobTickets are communicated via SetFaxInJobElements requests, but that seems unlikely. It also states that “There is no mechanism for an explicit FaxInJobTicket to be received with an incoming FaxInJob.”. So it would appear that a FaxIn job ticket is derived from an AvailableFaxInJobTicket or the DefaultFaxInJob Ticket, and it would seem that SetFaxInServiceElements is the more likely. As is indicated in the FaxIn draft, there is a “Need a complete description (and diagram?) of FaxIn Job lifecycle and various InputChannel types applicable” . This would need to be done if FaxIn is to be included in SM3.
With regard to your second point, my query about how to handle Cloud FaxIn was concerned with the rationale of modeling Cloud FaxIn Service, particularly since the User interface is just at the Administrator level. Unless you are suggesting that the IPP decision with regard to FaxIn cause it to be dropped from SM3 (in which case I agree that it should not be in the Cloud model), I think that making IPP binding of a specific service a necessary prerequisite to modeling that service is setting a new precedent that we may regret. It would of course make SM3 somewhat simpler. Actually, FaxIn might be one of the less likely Services to need an IPP binding, since none of the Basic User operations appear to be necessary.
Of course, if you are saying that a Cloud FaxIn Service has no conceivable application (as we agreed with respect to a Cloud Copy Service for example), that would be a good reason to not include it.
Thanks, Bill Wagner
From: cloud-bounces at pwg.org [mailto:cloud-bounces at pwg.org] On Behalf Of Ira McDonald
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 4:19 PM
To: Semantic Model 3.0 Workgroup discussion list; Ira McDonald
Cc: cloud at pwg.org
Subject: Re: [Cloud] [SM3] Cloud FaxIn Service
We *did* define in complete detail how a set of available job tickets are
configured on a FaxIn service and how they are selected - and all of
this is in SM schema and the most recent FaxIn draft.
BUT - I strongly urge that we *not* put FaxIn into Cloud Model, because
the IPP WG has decided (and written into their charter a year ago) that
they will *not* do an IPP FaxIn service - no protocol binding to satisfy the
PWG prototype requirement.
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WG
IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
mailto: blueroofmusic at gmail.com
Winter 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176 734-944-0094
Summer PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 906-494-2434
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 4:07 PM, William A Wagner <wamwagner at comcast.net> wrote:
In working on the Cloud spec, we decided that Resource, Transform, and Copy
Services were not to be considered. EmailIn and Email Out services we to be
dropped from the Semantic Model entirely. That left Print, Scan, FaxOut and
FaxIn Cloud services that might involve connection to a 'local' service.
FaxIn remains an unusual service in that it does not involve an explicit
CreateJob or, indeed, any specific Job-related communication with a User. It
may involve creation of a user-specific FaxInAvailableJobTicket, which
defines how an incoming Fax is to be handled. In the MFD Model, I don't
think we ever defined how a FaxInAvailableJobTicket was provided to a FaxIn
Service. Conceptually, it could be either be via some out of band
management operation, or possible a SetFaxInJobElements or a
SetFaxInServiceElements operation. Presumably SetFaxInServiceElements makes
the most sense, understanding that there will typically be multiple
FaxInAvailableJobTickets with different Imaging Metrics.
The interface to a FaxIn Service is therefore most reasonably an
The rationale for a Cloud FaxIn service is shaky but probably as valid as
for a Cloud FaxOut service: Fax Modems could be in the Cloud or 'Local";
incoming fax destinations can be local or in the cloud. Therefore, although
the User Client to Cloud Service connection would just be administrative,
incoming facsimile messages to a Cloud FaxIn Service may require creating a
Job that is sent to a local FaxIn Service (although it could be just a
print Service or a storage service). Incoming facsimile messages to a Local
FaxIn Service could require both notification and upload of the facsimile
message to a Cloud FaxIn Service, although such transfers could be out of
band from the model. Presently, we have not provided any mechanism for the
Proxy to create a job in the Cloud Service (do we want to?)
So.long story short, should we:
1. Drop FaxIn from the Cloud Model
2. Allow a Cloud FaxIn Service to create a Job from an incoming Fax,
and then relay the fax data to a Local FaxIn Service for printing and/or
3. Also allow a LocalFaxIn Service to create a Job from an incoming
Fax and relay the fax data to a Cloud FaxIn service for storage?
There are also some parallel questions for FaxOut. Should the Cloud
A. Just configurations where the Fax Modem is 'Local' (fax transmitted
and locally generated from locally scanned hardcopy and/or Digital Data
obtained by the local FaxOut (or Proxy) Service or Digital Data pulled from
the Cloud FaxOut Service.)
B. Also configurations where the Fax Modem is in the Cloud (fax
generated from uploaded locally scanned hardcopy and/or uploaded Digital
Data obtained by the local FaxOut or Proxy, or Digital Data otherwise
accessed by the Cloud FaxOut Service.
It might be noted that whatever we decide, FaxIn should be addressed in the
Many thanks for your consideration.
sm3 mailing list
sm3 at pwg.orghttps://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/sm3
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...