At 04:45 PM 10/29/1999 -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
> > Basically I am suggesting that future definitions of "contact info" for
> > internet protocols and standards should include the "print-to" URL. Why
> > not?
>>i would ask rather why is it *necessary*?
>>i reverse the question because otherwise we end up with an enormous mess,
>as opposed to the relatively lean machine which has been the key to our
Well if you look at the development of IPP and its current level of
support, which is very substantial and growing every day, and the general
theory that fax at a sufficient level of abstraction is "remote printing"
then a "print-to" URL based on IPP is necessary.
Some of us believe that the concept of "fax" is multi-modal. GSTN T.30
analog, RFC 2305 S&F, IPP...take your pick...if you must get a document
from point A to point B, which is a essential global communications
service, .. you now have a choice ...and choice is good. That is the goal
of QUALDOCS. Therefore references to the various transport layer
opportunities in a "phone book" is useful.
And I might add some of us are ready to put IPP addresses on our business
cards as soon as we can figure out how to get our DSL providers to install
a working service, much less route the packets correctly.
Shockey Consulting LLC
8045 Big Bend Blvd. Suite 110
St. Louis, MO 63119
eFAX Fax to EMail 815.333.1237 (Preferred for Fax)
INTERNET Mail & IFAX : rshockey at ix.netcom.com
GSTN Fax 314.918.9015
MediaGate iPost VoiceMail and Fax 800.260.4464