In particular the IPP WG has made remarkable progress in bringing V1.1 to
Standards Track status.
With that work nearing last call and Oslo upcoming it seems appropriate to
review what steps should be taken next.
In discussions with our Area Directors there is still some interest in=
seeing
work proceed on what is known as the SMTP SESSION mode of transmission.=
SESSION
essentially combines the functions of SMTP MTA/MUA in one protocol. Such=
work
may be relevant to document/fax transmissions but has lots of other uses as
well . It is the judgement of the Area Directors that this work should
conducted separately from the QUALDOCS work, though it could draw on some of
the Goals and Requirements we choose to draft.
As of this date, however, no one has stepped forward to offer to chair such=
as
SESSION WG or organize a BOF in OSLO on the subject.
Consequently IMHO we should concentrate our efforts on starting up some=
Goals
work with the view that IPP 1.1 will be the likely baseline for our efforts.
Considering that time is short and Oslo is near, I don't see any reasons why=
we
should request a 2nd BOF on this subject, but proceed as if we could start a=
WG
and look to Washington DC.
With that in mind it is appropriate to review my proposed charter and see,
whether in the light of the past couple of weeks, there is anything that=
should
be revised or amended.
So.... the old charter is attached. Please take some time to review it and
forward your comments to the list.
Thanks..
#############
Proposed Charter:
QUALDOCS HIGH QUALITY DOCUMENT DISTRIBUTION=20
Chair(s): Richard Shockey =20
<rshockey@ix.netcom.com> [PROPOSED]
=20
Applications Area Director(s):
Keith Moore <moore+iesg@cs.utk.edu>
Patrik F=E4ltstr=F6m <paf@swip.net>
Area Advisor
Keith Moore <moore+iesg@cs.utk.edu>
Mailing lists:
General Discussion: ifx@pwg.org
=20
To Subscribe:
majordomo@pwg.org
In Body: subscribe ifx [your-email-address]
The subject line should be blank =20
Archive:=20
=20
<http://www.pwg.org/hypermail/ifx>
Description of Working Group:
The transmission and reception of final form documents (i.e. presented in a
format that describes their final rendering) is an essential global
communications service.
Several protocols and services have been developed over the years to=
facilitate
document transmission, including the GSTN Fax service [ITU -T.30]. Within=
the
IETF several protocols have been developed that facilitate document
transmission, including RFC 2305 and RFC 2532 [Store and Forward Internet=
Fax]
and the Internet Print Protocol [IPP].
Problem Statement:
Each of these services has one or more severe limitations or restrictions=
that
may not be suitable for all document transmissions.
Among those limitations that could be applied to one or more of the above
services:
1. Limitations on Quality (resolution or color transmission)
2. Ability to repudiate request for receipt confirmation (MDN - DSN)
3. Lack of clear and unambiguous legal identification of sender and=
recipient
4. Lack of ability to adequately determine the success or failure of a=
document
transmission during processing
5. Inability to establish reliable knowledge or negotiation of recipient
capabilities
6. Inability to satisfy legal as well as general custom and practice for
document transmission technologies, as typically applied to GSTN Fax.
7. Inability to establish transaction security, authenticity and
confidentiality of document transmission
Work Group Objectives:
The purpose of the work group will be to investigate current work within the
IETF and identify protocols, procedures and policies that can satisfy the
requirements for reliable document transmission with a high degree of=
fidelity
and reliability.
Essential attributes for Quality Document Delivery Services include:
A. Timely Delivery
B. Transaction Security, Authenticity and Confidentiality
C. High quality output with sender control of presentation detail
D. Legal identity exchange
E. Document format selection based on confirmed capabilities of sender
and/or receiver.
F. NonRepudiable Proof of Delivery (Receipt Notification)
Study will be given to the requirements of 3rd party document delivery=
service
providers.
The WG will not submit any new protocols only extensions or augmentations to
existing or proposed Standards Track protocols.
Proposed solutions:=20
Proposed solutions should not impose undue burdens on implementers in order
that the protocol should be available on a wide variety of devices and=
systems.
The group will take note of other areas within the IETF that may have direct
bearing on reliable document delivery.
Relevant areas include: =20
- Security, Authentication and Encryption (TLS, etc)
- Sender Identification (vCard)
- RFC 2301 File Formats
- Digital Signatures and Certificates
Particular emphasis will be taken to design protocol elements that would=
likely
reduce the possibility of document =93spaming=94 as well as other forms of=
denial
and abuse of service.
The working group will closely coordinate its activities with other IETF=
Work
Groups, including the Internet Print Protocol working group [IPP] and the
Internet Fax working group [FAX] as well other document transmission related
standards bodies and related work groups, notably the ITU-T Study Group 8. =
=20
Goals and Milestones: =20
August 1999 : Submit Internet Draft of Goals and Objectives for Quality
Document Distribution or submit addendum to RFC 2542 (Goals and Terminology=
for
Internet Fax)
November 1999 : Submit Internet Draft for Quality Document Distribution
Protocol
March 2000 : Submit Internet Draft of Quality Document Gateway Services=20
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Richard Shockey
Shockey Consulting LLC =20
8045 Big Bend Blvd. Suite 110 =20
St. Louis, MO 63119
Voice 314.918.9020
Fax 314.918.9015
INTERNET Mail & IFAX : rshockey@ix.netcom.com
eFAX 815.333.1237 =20
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<