Based on Bill's explanation, I would vote to keep the IPPFAX spec as is
(but see next paragraph), keeping media-ready in it. There is very little
extra overhead for a client to check this value in addition to the other
values he is checking.
There *is* a problem right now in the IPPFAX spec, since in Table 2 in
section 7.1, we say the Sender SHOULD check media-ready, but in section
9.2.1.1, we say the Sender MUST check media-ready. I would think that we
should go with MUST, to go with the idea that the job will print right
away.
Let's not water down IPPFAX.
Dennis
"Wagner,William"
<WWagner@NetSilic To: "Hastings, Tom N" <hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com>, "Gail Songer"
on.com> <gail.songer@peerless.com>
Sent by: cc: <ifx@pwg.org>
owner-ifx@pwg.org Subject: RE: IFX> Media-Ready [and is IPPFAX a Device Protocol or an Electronic Document
Exchange Protocol?]
06/05/03 06:40 PM
Although I have no strong feelings on this, I recall several thoughts from
"the early days" of this activity. Granted that much has happened since
and these ideas may no longer be germain, some vestage may explain why the
medi-ready requirement existed.
1. It was called QualDocs, not FAX. It was not intended to replicate
facsimile, but was to implement peoples perception of FAX (a reliable,
secure, sure way to "send a document over the wire" ) without the
defficiencies of existing FAX ( speed, quality, flexibility). The fact
that traditional fax is not necesarily reliable nor secure nor sure did not
mean that QualDocs could have the same problems. The notion was that FAX
was well established and prevalent and that there would need to be a
compelling advanage to QualDocs for it to be accepted.
2. The "sure" perception was that as an input sheet is being scanned in the
scanner, a facsimile of that sheet is comming out of the receiver. This
perception would be addressed by determining whether there was proper media
ready, and signalling when the last sheet was correctly printed.
Presumably, if the tranmission would be stored rather than printed, the
user would be notified, would have the option of cancelling and would have
the option to ask for an asynchronous notification when the document was
printed.
Bill Wagner
-----Original Message-----
From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com]
Sent: Thu 6/5/2003 7:50 PM
To: Gail Songer
Cc: ifx@pwg.org
Subject: RE: IFX> Media-Ready [and is IPPFAX a Device Protocol
or an Electronic Document Exchange Protocol?]
Gail,
Sounds like there is growing consensus to get rid of the
"media-ready" Receiver attribute in IPPFAX and get rid of the
RECOMMENDATION that the Sender query it. This makes IPPFAX even simpler.
Also with the choice media type, there is yet another reason
for the Sender not to query the Receiver's "media-ready" attribute. The
Sender can assume that the choice a4 or letter is supported for IPPFAX and
doesn't even have to query the Receiver's "media-supported" attribute.
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: Gail Songer
[mailto:gail.songer@peerless.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 08:12
To: Hastings, Tom N
Cc: ifx@pwg.org
Subject: RE: IFX> Media-Ready [and is IPPFAX a
Device Protocol or an Electronic Document Exchange Protocol?]
Hi Tom,
I’ve been mulling this topic and I believe that
media-ready was required because we were going to require the client to
format the job based on the size of the paper that could be printed (sender
makes right).
However, now that we allow scaling and that we are
focusing repositories, maybe this requirement can be lifted.
Gail Songer
Peerless Systems Corp
-----Original Message-----
From: Hastings, Tom N
[mailto:hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com]
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 3:06 PM
To: Gail Songer
Cc: ifx@pwg.org
Subject: RE: IFX> Media-Ready [and is IPPFAX a
Device Protocol or an Electronic Document Exchange Protocol?]
Gail,
I suspect that the reason that the IPPFAX spec
says that the Receiver MUST support "media-ready" was because the spec says
that the IPPFAX Sender SHOULD query the "media-ready" Printer attribute.
I also think that the mind set of IPPFAX had been
a single Device, so that the fan-out to multiple devices wasn't even a
consideration in being difficult to reflect the "media-ready" value(s)
correctly. For example, the statement in the Introduction:
"The target market for an IPPFAX receiver is a
midrange imaging device that can support the minimum memory requirements
that are required by the data format PDF/is, but the image format is
structured in such a way that the Receiver is not required to include a
disk or other permanent storage."
On the other hand, the definition of Receiver is:
"Receiver The Printer object that accepts IPPFAX
protocol operations and receives the Document sent by the Sender. A
Receiver offers the IPPFAX Print Service (by definition)."
So the real question is:
OK that the IPPFAX Sender not bother with querying
"media-ready", but should send the IPPFAX PDF/is document whether the media
is ready or not?
If the Sender doesn't query "media-ready", then
the IPPFAX protocol is an Electronic Document Transfer Protocol, i.e., get
the bits from the Sender to the Receiver, rather than get the Quality
Document Successfully Printed onto Paper Service. The mind set of the WG
does shift from one paradigm to the other from time to time (and from place
to place within the IPPFAX Protocol spec itself).
As another example of this vacilation between
defining a Device Protocol versus an Electronic Document Exchange Service,
is the idea that the IPPGET notification is going to indicate whether the
paper got printed OK. To me that means we are talking about getting the
document successfully transferred to paper. Therefore, with that mind set,
having the Sender query the "media-ready" makes a lot of sense if the
Sending User cares about knowing for certain that the document was
correctly imaged onto paper.
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: Gail Songer
[mailto:gail.songer@peerless.com]
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 06:32
To: ifx@pwg.org
Subject: IFX> Media-Ready
At Wednesday’s telecom, we discovered
that Media-Ready was Required in one spot and optional in another. Ira was
of the opinion that it should be PROHIBIED.
Does anyone else have opinion (or
remember why it was “Required”?)
Gail Songer
Peerless Systems Corp
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 06 2003 - 08:36:34 EDT