This sounds reasonable to me.
Lloyd
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2000 3:57 PM
> To: McIntyre, Lloyd; 'gleclair at agentz.com'; Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM;
>pmoore at peerless.com> Cc: ifx at pwg.org; Buckley, Robert R
> Subject: RE: IFX> Thoughts after first meeting
>>> I support Paul's idea of separating document format (FAX-specific
> water-marking, legal requirements between parties, etc.) from
> discover/transport (which would be common between FAX. Then
> the latter
> could be used alone for intranet transfer within an
> organization where the
> FAX water marks and other legal stuff would get in the way.
> In order to
> make sure that there isn't a divergence between the two documents, the
> former document will require the latter, while the latter
> does NOT require
> the former. The former will NOT duplicate anything in the
> latter document.
>> Ok?
>> Tom
>> -----Original Message-----
> From: McIntyre, Lloyd [mailto:Lloyd.McIntyre at pahv.xerox.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 10:11
> To: 'gleclair at agentz.com'; Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM;
>pmoore at peerless.com> Cc: ifx at pwg.org; Buckley, Robert R
> Subject: RE: IFX> Thoughts after first meeting
>>> I can understand a desire to split the spec in order to
> appease both camps.
> I am, however, concerned about the inevitable divergences
> that result from
> splitting.
>> Might it be reasonable to retain one specification and make
> watermarking an
> application space dependent requirement? Documents
> distributed with the
> desired to realize fax legal status, would include the
> necessary watermark
> provisions.
>> Integration of IFax with the copier and scanner distribution
> applications is
> essential - we must strive for a universal messaging environment.
>> Lloyd
>> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: gleclair at agentz.com [mailto:gleclair at agentz.com]
> > Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 2:34 PM
> > To: Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM; pmoore at peerless.com> > Cc: ifx at pwg.org> > Subject: RE: IFX> Thoughts after first meeting
> >
> >
> > Sorry to have not been in attendance.
> >
> > I would agree with the split proposed by Paul.
> >
> > Other WG efforts may benefit from the 'negotiated image format'
> > effort independent of the FAX issues.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Greg LeClair
> > P1394.3 PPDT Chair
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-ifx at pwg.org [mailto:owner-ifx at pwg.org]On
> Behalf Of Harry
> > > Lewis/Boulder/IBM
> > > Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 12:47 PM
> > > To: pmoore at peerless.com> > > Cc: ifx at pwg.org> > > Subject: Re: IFX> Thoughts after first meeting
> > >
> > >
> > > Life always gets interesting when an essential "must
> have" overlaps
> > > directly with "no way José"!
> > >
> > > The motivation for "QualDocs" apparently embraced both sets of
> > > requirements - the "IPP Fax" AND broader "driverless"
> > printing goals. I
> > > support Paul's recommendation to split the specification as
> > an effective
> > > way to address the (powerful but unique) semantics of
> IPP-FAX (legal
> > > issues etc.) Still, I feel both efforts are essentially
> > follow-on to IPP
> > > and need to be remain coordinated to prevent rampant divergence.
> > >
> > >
> > > Harry Lewis
> > > IBM Printing Systems
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > pmoore at peerless.com> > > Sent by: owner-ifx at pwg.org> > > 09/25/2000 11:47 AM
> > >
> > >
> > > To: ifx at pwg.org> > > cc:
> > > Subject: IFX> Thoughts after first meeting
> > >
> > >
> > > Firstly, thanks to all who attended the initial IPP Fax (as
> > I must now
> > > learn to
> > > call it) meeting in Chicago.
> > >
> > > The passionate (did I hear heated, even) debate was a good
> > sign; people
> > > think
> > > this is important and we all have strong ideas about what
> should be
> > > delivered.
> > > Ron Bergman has posted detailed minutes for the meeting (thanks
> > > Ron) but I
> > > will
> > > repeat here the major points.
> > >
> > > 1. The name was changed from Qualdocs to IPP Fax. Most people felt
> > > Qualdocs was
> > > not clear and did not translate well for non USA attendees.
> > >
> > > 2. The charter was updated and accepted. No major changes
> > were made to the
> > > charter except to specifically state the we were building
> > on IPP. Tee
> > > modified
> > > version is on the web site http://pwg.org/qualdocs/index.html.> > >
> > > 3. We thrashed out what we meant by 'high bars' low bars'
> > 'negotiated' ,
> > > etc.
> > > with regards to image parameters.
> > >
> > > What did become apparent was a split in people's views
> > about how this
> > > technology
> > > is to be used. The FAX attendees saw this as a 100% FAX
> > product - whereas
> > > the
> > > broader imaging attendees (printers, copiers, scanners) saw wider
> > > usefullness in
> > > having a standardised, negotiated image format (as well
> as Faxing).
> > >
> > > The wider uses include things like copier to copier
> copying, network
> > > scanning,
> > > ad-hoc printing, etc.
> > >
> > > Specifically the debate came down to whether or not the
> transmitted
> > > documents
> > > needed to be watermarked or stamped in some way. For the
> > pure fax people
> > > this
> > > was a must, for the wider uses this would be a disaster. I
> > am sure there
> > > will be
> > > other divisions too. I had crafted the charter to allow for the
> > > wider uses
> > > as
> > > well as the fax case but no form of word crafting can get
> round this
> > > fundamental
> > > divide. The solution I propose is that we split the spec
> > into two pieces.
> > >
> > > A) A common agreed image format with some form of negotiation /
> > > discovery.
> > > This
> > > can be used regardless of whether or not the transport is
> > doing 'IPP fax'
> > > or
> > > not. We will end up specifying the rules associated with
> > saying that you
> > > support
> > > 'application/tiff-fx' as a document format.
> > >
> > > B) A set of enhancements to IPP to get 100% into Faxing on
> > the internet.
> > > Includes identity exchange, security, watermarking, etc. We
> > would make A a
> > > pre-requisiste
> > >
> > > Actually splitting might well speed things up (divide and conquer)
> > >
> > > What do people think?
> > >
> > > Paul Moore
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>