PWG-IPP Mail Archive: RE: ADM - IPP Priorities

RE: ADM - IPP Priorities

From: harryl@us.ibm.com
Date: Wed Jun 21 2000 - 12:34:16 EDT

  • Next message: pmoore@peerless.com: "RE: ADM - IPP Priorities"

    I don't see the distinction (fax replace vs. non-store and forward ifax).
    Fax is like... (caution... oversimplification filter)...

    1. You select a destination (phone), scan something and it comes out at
    the other end. (Has to be massive majority of use... right?... THE major
    fax paradigm).
    2. You direct the output of an application to a simulated printer (driver)
    which renders a fax suitable format (as if it was scanned) and
    programmatically manages delivery to your selected destination.
    3. Then there's stuff like dist lists, economical transfer of files via
    (Internet) with local fax distribution etc.

    Sure... I'm oversimplifying and heating up any fax oriented experts
    reading the list...

    But, how is Qualdocs different from fax replacement, then? If you scan a
    (color) document to TIFF or PDF and "IPP" that to a printer, haven't you
    fulfilled fax paradigm (1)? If your application generates TIFF or PDF and
    sends it to a IPP URL... isn't that (2)? Dist lists etc seem just as
    feasible with IPP as they do with FAX.

    Perhaps as Bill suggests... I (being part of the print oriented PWG) just
    don't understand FAX. I'm sure the fax experts can articulate all the
    nuances. I think that above represents what most USERS know about fax,
    however!

    Harry Lewis
    IBM Printing Systems

    "Wagner,William" <bwagner@digprod.com>
    Sent by: owner-pwg-ipp@pwg.org
    06/20/2000 02:43 PM

            To: pwg-ipp@pwg.org
            cc:
            Subject: RE: ADM - IPP Priorities

    I think the PWG must decide if we are proposing a fax replacement, as Carl
    seems to be suggesting, or a non-store and forward internet fax
    implementation (which I understand was the Qualdocs objective). In terms
    of
    a specification, these are not the same. There are both technical and
    political problems in either path; but I think it would be unwise to
    assume
    that the largely printer oriented PWG properly understands fax, any more
    than the fax oriented groups understand printing.

    I suggest that this inconsistency in what qualdocs is must be resolved
    before the PWG consider its priority.

    William A. Wagner (Bill Wagner)
    Director of Technology
    Imaging Division
    NETsilicon, Inc.
    781-398-4588

    -----Original Message-----
    From: pmoore@peerless.com [mailto:pmoore@peerless.com]
    Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 3:20 PM
    To: kugler@us.ibm.com
    Cc: pwg-ipp@pwg.org
    Subject: RE: ADM - IPP Priorities

    QD is just what you describe (we all said - "hey IPP can do synchronous
    fax").
    It merely defines the details. THe most important thing it does is to
    mandate a
    data format (which you must have for guaranteed data exchange) plus it
    defines a
    way of the client discovering the parameters of that format for a given
    printer
    (paper size, resolution,..).
    It doesnt define anything new - just defines how they are all put together
    (IPP1, TIFF/FX and CONEG)
    Thats all it does - it aint magic it just crosses the ts and dots the is
    on
    what
    we have had in mind all along.

    kugler@us.ibm.com on 06/20/2000 11:59:39 AM

    To: pwg-ipp@pwg.org
    cc: (bcc: Paul Moore/AUCO/US)

    Subject: RE: ADM - IPP Priorities

    Call me a simpleton, but I don't understand why Qualdocs has to stand in
    the way of the IPP "Killer App": Fax Replacement. I think IPP/TLS with
    client authentication (using client-side certificates) is at least an 80%
    solution to the fax replacement problem.

    Put a SSL or TLS enabled IPP Printer on the Internet and configure it to
    accept job submissions from anyone with a verifiable client-side
    certificate. Have the Printer generate a cover page for each job, listing
    the contents of the senders's X.509 certificate. Now you have a Printer
    that is accessible publicly, but not anonymously. (Or you could restrict
    access by organization or whatever.)

    The submitter will need a certificate, but an individual can obtain one
    from a CA like Verisign for about $20/year. This amount might be saved in
    long-distance charges. (Alternatively, an enterprise can set up its own
    CA. Many already have one for other reasons.) The submitter will also
    need a secure IPP client, but it takes equipment or software to send
    faxes,
    too.

    Overall, cheaper, better, and more secure than fax. No need to wait for
    QUALDOCS.

              -Carl

    Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS@pwg.org on 06/20/2000 11:46:17 AM

    Sent by: owner-pwg-ipp@pwg.org

    To: "Wagner,William" <bwagner@digprod.com>
    cc: cmanros@cp10.es.xerox.com, pwg-ipp@pwg.org,
          Stuart.Rowley@ktd-kyocera.com
    Subject: RE: ADM - IPP Priorities

    Perhaps a vote for Qualdocs is a vote for IPP client. Then, within the
    client discussion there are two separate paths (Qualdocs - i.e. TIFF-FX,
    Coneg and "Full Featured" - i.e. Fonts, UPDF, kitchen sink...) ?? Valid
    way of resolving this?

    Harry Lewis
    IBM Printing Systems

    "Wagner,William" <bwagner@digprod.com>
    Sent by: owner-pwg-ipp@pwg.org
    06/20/2000 10:55 AM

            To: "'Stuart Rowley'" <Stuart.Rowley@ktd-kyocera.com>,
    "'Manros, Carl-Uno B'"
    <cmanros@cp10.es.xerox.com>
            cc: pwg-ipp@pwg.org
            Subject: RE: ADM - IPP Priorities

    I fully agree with Stuart. Qualdocs was not on the original list. I, for
    one, responded before Qualdocs was introduced. It is not clear who is
    considering qualdocs and who is not considering it. Finally, despite the
    appreciated explanations, I am still uncertain what position the PWG has
    with respect to qualdocs, which as far as I see, is still not a chartered
    IETF working group. If we are an unofficial advisory body to a
    non-existent
    working group, I think we must consider what our efforts would consist of
    before we consider priorities. If we have a real opportunity to help
    advance
    the idea of IPP for scanning/fax (by whatever name), I would put the
    importance just below a full featured client (which may be considered to
    include driver and font handling).

    William A. Wagner (Bill Wagner)
    Director of Technology
    Imaging Division
    NETsilicon, Inc.
    781-398-4588

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Stuart Rowley [mailto:Stuart.Rowley@ktd-kyocera.com]
    Sent: Monday, June 19, 2000 8:03 PM
    To: 'Manros, Carl-Uno B'
    Cc: pwg-ipp@pwg.org
    Subject: RE: ADM - IPP Priorities

    In under the wire...

    My rankings:

    7 Print Driver Download
    7 Open Source IPP Client
    3 Resource Object
    3 Set 2 Operations
    1 Production Printing Attributes
    0 Set 3 Operations
    0 Document & Page Exceptions

    Since Qualdocs was not included in the original vote request and many did
    not include it in their vote, I also omitted it. I suggest polling the
    participants at the next meeting to gauge interest in Qualdocs or redoing
    the email vote with Qualdocs as one of the defined candidates rather than
    as
    a write-in.

    Stuart
    Kyocera Technology Development



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 21 2000 - 12:41:25 EDT