IFX Mail Archive: RE: IFX> RE: Fax processing confirmation

RE: IFX> RE: Fax processing confirmation

From: MAEDA toru (maeda.toru@canon.co.jp)
Date: Wed Feb 21 2001 - 04:24:36 EST

  • Next message: Carl Kugler: "RE: IFX> RE: Fax processing confirmation"

    Ira-san

    >And the page-by-page job notifications are OPTIONAL in the
    >IPP notifications model spec.

    Please let me know which section describes the page-by-page job notifications,
      since I could not find it in
    http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipp-not-spec-06.txt.

    Shall I check other drafts?

    Reagrds.

    Toru Maeda

    At 23:41 01/02/20 -0800, McDonald, Ira wrote:
    >Maeda-san and Bill,
    >
    >Thanks for the clarifications, Bill.
    >
    >Note that the IESG 'last call' is on the _model_ for IPP
    >notifications. None of the actual IPP notifications
    >delivery methods (including 'ippget' in-band IPP notifications,
    >most appropriate for a fax-like experience) are up for IESG
    >'last call' yet.
    >
    >And the page-by-page job notifications are OPTIONAL in the
    >IPP notifications model spec.
    >
    >Personally, I don't think 'indp' (IPP Notifications Delivery
    >Protocol) which requires that the IPP Client take the role
    >of HTTP _server_ and accept incoming HTTP connections from
    >the IPP Printer (in order to receive notifications) is at all
    >appropriate for a fax-like behavior over the Internet.
    >
    >Of course, I think IPP _does_ have good future potential for
    >realtime fax-like behavior over the Internet. It just isn't
    >there yet.
    >
    >Cheers,
    >- Ira McDonald, consulting architect at Sharp and Xerox
    > High North Inc
    >
    >PS - Note that all IPP sessions use an HTTP connection for a
    >transport protocol and thus have firewall issues for public
    >Internet use (just like end-to-end SMTP does).
    >
    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: Wagner,William [mailto:wwagner@netsilicon.com]
    >Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 9:23 AM
    >To: 'MAEDA toru'; McDonald, Ira; ifx@pwg.org
    >Subject: RE: IFX> RE: Fax processing confirmation
    >
    >
    >Maeda-san,
    >
    >I think Ira McDonald's message may have been misunderstood. The IPP
    >notification may still be "work in progress". But, as indicated by the IESG
    >message below, the basic mechanisms are up for last call. These documents,
    >although they deal with many possible notification events and mechanisms, do
    >include "page by page confirmation from the receiver" (or more exactly,
    >sheet by sheet confirmation.)
    >
    >Further, although various notification mechanisms are identified, it is
    >assumed that sheet-by-sheet job progress notification is applicable
    >primarily to real-time notification connections which include the "indp"
    >method <draft-ietf-ipp-indp-method-03.txt> as well as the "get" method
    ><draft-ietf-ipp-notify-get-01.txt> alluded to by Ira.
    >
    >I suggest that the IP FAX community may be interested in commenting on these
    >notification approaches.
    >
    >I would also suggest that the various IFAX approaches each have advantages
    >in certain environments. T.37 uses virtually universal EMAIL capabilities.
    >T.38 (non-gateway) uses voice over IP, which suggests a voice/fax
    >capability. IPP has great flexibility, it can utilize developments in its
    >host HTTP protocol, and provides for authentication and encryption. It is
    >unclear that internet fax must settle on a single protocol.
    >
    >The IESG announcement, dated Mon 2/19/2001. follows.
    >
    >"The IESG has received a request from the Internet Printing Protocol
    >Working Group to consider Internet Printing Protocol (IPP):IPP Event
    >Notification Specification <draft-ietf-ipp-not-spec-06.txt> as a
    >Proposed Standard.
    >
    >The IESG will also consider publication of Internet Printing Protocol:
    >Requirements for IPP Notifications <draft-ietf-ipp-not-05.txt> as an
    >Informational RFC.
    >
    >
    >The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
    >final comments on this action. Please send any comments to the
    >iesg@ietf.org or ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by March 5, 2001.
    >
    >Files can be obtained via
    >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipp-not-spec-06.txt
    >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipp-not-05.txt "
    >
    >Regards,
    >
    >William A. Wagner (Bill Wagner)
    >Director of Technology
    >Imaging Division
    >NETsilicon, Inc.
    >781-398-4588
    >
    >
    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: MAEDA toru [mailto:maeda.toru@canon.co.jp]
    >Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 4:45 AM
    >To: McDonald, Ira; ifx@pwg.org
    >Subject: IFX> RE: Fax processing confirmation
    >
    >
    >Ira-san
    >
    >Thank you very much for detailed information about the IPP notification
    >that it does not support page by page confirmation from the receiver.
    >Fax wg should discuss about fax processing status.
    >PWG IPP FAX WG may discuss about the fax processing status also.
    >
    >Regards.
    >
    >Toru Maeda
    >
    >At 12:59 01/02/17 -0800, McDonald, Ira wrote:
    > >Hi Dan and IFax folks,
    > >
    > >Please note that IPP notifications (in-band via IPP channel
    > >or out-of-band via SMTP or 'reverse' HTTP) are still
    > >work-in-progress in the IETF IPP WG.
    > >
    > >IPP native protocol itself does NOT provide confirmation that
    > >any pages have actually been printed without polling (by the
    > >IPP Client) of the IPP Printer.
    > >
    > >The IEEE/ISTO PWG (Printer Working Group) has chartered IPPFax
    > >project, but it isn't very far along yet. The IETF declined
    > >to charter IPPFax as an IETF WG, so this is probably quite
    > >far away from an IETF 'standards track' RFC.
    > >
    > >Cheers,
    > >- Ira McDonald, consulting architect at Sharp and Xerox
    > > (active member of IETF IPP WG, author of 'ipp:' URL scheme)
    > > High North Inc
    > >
    > >-----Original Message-----
    > >From: Dan Wing [mailto:dwing@cisco.com]
    > >Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 10:26 AM
    > >To: MAEDA toru
    > >Cc: ietf-fax@imc.org; Claudio Allocchio; Hiroshi Tamura
    > >Subject: Re: Fax processing confirmation
    > >
    > >
    > >On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 18:57 +0900, MAEDA toru wrote:
    > >
    > > > Wing-san
    > > >
    > > > How much confidence of ifax transmission in Simple Mode ?
    > > > Does no response mean a good confirmation ?
    > > >
    > > > I want to add Fax processing confirmation in Full Mode.
    > > > In Full Mode, the image file is send as TIFF file over SMTP.
    > > > There will be some possibilities to fail to print or process
    > > > the TIFF file by some reasons. These reasons may be
    > > > incorrect TIFF parameter for the receiver
    > > > or out of capabilities TIFF parameter for the receiver.
    > > >
    > > > When you put the 10 pages of document on the scanner
    > > > and send by ifax Full Mode and you get the confirmation sheet
    > > > with 9 pages received successfully, you will find something
    > > > wrong with the scanner or the transmission. You will check
    > > > the scanner or the system and may ask to the user of the receiver.
    > > >
    > > > Comparing to the E-mail system, you can not get information about
    > > > how many pages the receiver successfully printed but just received.
    > > > You may find that the attached file is not be able to be processed
    > > > nor printed by the Email receiver with your inspiration.
    > > >
    > > > The user of Full Mode ifax will have confidence of the ifax
    > > > transmission when the transmitter prints confirmation sheet
    > > > with the number of pages printed on the receiver and also
    > > > the number of page in error.
    > > >
    > > > Any comments?
    > >
    > >IPP provides this sort of confirmation today. Why not use IPP?
    > >
    > >-d
    >
    >--------------------
    >MAEDA TORU
    >MIE Development Div. 2
    >CANON Inc.
    >--------------------

    -----------------------------------
    $B%-%d%N%s3t<02q<R(B
    $B1GA|;vL35!(BMIE$B?d?J%;%s%?!<(B
    $B1GA|;vL35!(BMIE$BBh#23+H/It(B
    $BA0ED!!E0(B
    146-8501$B!!El5~ETBgED6h2<4];R#3!]#3#0!]#2(B
    $BEEOC!!(B03-3757-9738$B!"(BFAX$B!!(B03-3757-8205
    -----------------------------------



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 21 2001 - 04:17:24 EST