I agree. I realize we're not inventing a new fax protocol here, so some of
this may be unnecessary, but, as Ron Bergman says, "If it quacks like a
duck..." - with MFPs and network scanners, people may use this quality
document transfer specification in the same manner they currently use fax
so we should endeavour to use as many of the usual and customary features
of GSTN fax as makes sense within our charter.
>> A point-to-point fax call does not have any more validity than an
>>email between two parties.
>
>In the general case maybe but ...
>Not true in many Judicial Districts (California, Wyoming etc) where >there
are specific rules on fax that do not apply to e mail transactions >etc.
also GSA rules on bid submissions etc.
Right, and many lawyers I've dealt with (here in CA) are happy to fax me
something but rarely agree to email me anything important. It's part of
that unmodifiable requirement Richard mentioned earlier.
>Its really not helpful to continue to insist on goals based on the need
>to support 8 bit controllers. Some vendors are interested in adding >value
(read margins) to their products and if the ultimately agreed to >mandated
features require more sophisticated hardware components .. so >be it.
We're talking about networked devices here, and it's unusual to see 8 bit
devices used in networked office equipment these days. The only one I can
think of is HBM's print server card which is based on a 64180 derivative.
We produce protocol stacks for printers, etc, and we've never had a
customer ask for anything less than a 16 bit machine, and 32 bit machines
are increasingly becoming the norm.
>>> Are you looking at new machines or "black box" add on's?
>>New machines. Sharp, Brother, Matsushita (Panasonic) have spent
>snip...
>>insignificant. Here the BOM cost has to far south of $50.
>
>Yea I know .. SRP looks like $149.00 with superstore distribution. I've
>run these numbers myself. Been there done that.
Are we considering that a new generation of regular cheap fax machines
could have this Internet QualDocs mode in them? I had assumed that the
lowest target machines for this sort of thing were laser printer class
printers and laser MFPs, the sort of machines that have networking built
into them today. In these class of machines, OEMs typically pay roughly $80
(and up) to print server card manufacturers to get networking, but in this
class of machine the incremental cost of QualDocs is negligable.
Yes, I know we're considering the protocol not a product, but it's good to
keep sight of the prospective end user...
>But I submit that the introduction of any new technology like this
>traditionally begins with higher end devices and works its way down the
>price point scale as components become less expensive and more
>integrated.
Right, this is what I had assumed for QualDocs
>The notion IMHO is that we have needed a Store and Forward as well as a
>point to point oriented protocol.
Can you elucidate? This is the first I've heard about a store and forward
option. IPP doesn't restrict this (an IPP server could be a store and
forward point on the path to the ultimate receiver) but certainly f*x is
usually point to point and the simple IPP model is the same.
>like will network administrators punch holes in their fire walls for the
>IPP traffic and how simply will it be to set up your little $200 boxes >as
IPP servers on the network.
This is a common issue with IPP, but to tell the truth this is about as
much of an issue as providing an outside line in most large companies. IMHO
this problem is real, but very overstated.
Cheers,
Nick