IPP FAX folks,
In case this mail note is too discouraging, take a look at Dan Wing's
(CISCO) support of IPP FAX in the copied replies below.
It will be also be interesting to hear the Internet Fax folks reactions to
the IPP FAX presentation that we will be giving at the IETF meeting in
England next month on the Internet FAX WG agenda during the time that they
have graciously given to us.
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: McDonald, Ira [mailto:imcdonald at sharplabs.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 21:39
To: 'ifx at pwg.org'
Subject: IFX> FW: [Another take on IPP Fax from Terry Brookes]
Hi folks,
The following is from a recent thread on the IETF IFax WG list.
Comments?
Anyone think Terry's wrong about the viability of IPP Fax?
If he's right, we're probably all wasting our time on this list.
Cheers,
- Ira McDonald, consulting architect at Sharp and Xerox
High North Inc
-----Original Message-----
From: Terry Brookes [mailto:brookes_terry at hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 6:34 AM
To: imcdonald at sharplabs.com; dwing at cisco.com
Cc: ietf-fax at imc.org; maeda at crf.canon.fr; dcrocker at brandenburg.com
Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-fax-terminal-mode-goals-00.txt
Hi Ira,
>Do you just dislike IPP?
Nope, think it's great and would like to see a URI on every business card,
but from a business standpoint it doesn't look like a very good way of
meeting Mr Maeda's requirements. As far as I can tell he's looking for a way
to use the popularity of e-mail as the basis for a simple low cost T30-like
internet fax machine to replace the 100 million or so traditional fax
machines in use. There are estimated to be half a billion fax users, this,
presumably, is the target market. I believe its a reasonable assumption that
a very large proportion of these users now have e-mail addresses; a rapidly
growing number use Instant Messaging ( a number which will accelerate
dramaticaly when Windows XP appears); but only a very small and exclusive
group (the IPP developers ? printer manufacturers ?) appears to have any
knowledge whatsoever of IPP. From a technical standpoint Dan's proposal of
IPP may be OK, from a marketing standpoint it doesn't look like a very good
idea because the user won't have anyone to send to, because, despite the
valiant efforts of IPP people, hardly anyone actualy uses it. IM could (not
would!) be a better bet on the basis that it could work very much like T30
AND have a large number of people already using it. Not IMPP, which the Blue
Window Software Corporation (Redmond WA) is in the process of killing, but
Windows IM which will probably be the de facto IM standard by the time Mr
Maeda's machine is ready for production.
My own belief is that FOIP will only be successfull if it's as easy to use
as a regular fax machine. POP/SMTP has proved to be much too complex to set
up, IPP doesn't have a user base even if it *is* imbedded in every printer,
so maybe IM will be the answer...who knows?
Terry
>From: "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald at sharplabs.com>
>To: "'Terry Brookes'" <brookes_terry at hotmail.com>, dwing at cisco.com>CC: ietf-fax at imc.org, maeda at crf.canon.fr, dcrocker at brandenburg.com>Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-fax-terminal-mode-goals-00.txt
>Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 10:27:47 -0700
>>>Hi Terry,
>>Do you just dislike IPP?
>>For IPP Fax to work, IPP does NOT need to be ubiquitous. It just
>needs to be ubiquitous in deployed PRINTERS. Very few printers
>shipped in calendar 2001 that did not have IPP protocol support.
>Probably NONE will ship in calendar 2002 without IPP protocol
>support.
>>I agree that SMTP is ubiquitous, but it doesn't (and can't ever)
>do realtime capabilities negotiation, by its very nature.
>>Certainly such protocols as IMPP (your suggestion) are utterly
>inappropriate for sending large documents by VALUE (like IPP)
>and not by REFERENCE.
>>Could you explain your implacable opposition to IPP Fax, please?
>>Cheers,
>- Ira McDonald, consulting architect at Sharp and Xerox
> High North Inc
>>>-----Original Message-----
>From: Terry Brookes [mailto:brookes_terry at hotmail.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 8:30 AM
>To: dwing at cisco.com>Cc: ietf-fax at imc.org; maeda at crf.canon.fr; dcrocker at brandenburg.com>Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-fax-terminal-mode-goals-00.txt
>>>>Hi
>I'd re-phrase the following-
> >IPP exists. <
>>This would be more accurate-
> >IPP barely exists<
>>Also 'IPP FAX' certainly does NOT exist...yet.
>>IPP also requires infrastrucure in the form of IPP servers, so it may not
>meet the stated requirements of 'using existing infrastructure'.
>>If SMTP really doesn't work for fax terminal mode then strategicaly the new
>Windows Instant Messenger could be a much better bet. It's likely to become
>a de facto standard for the non-AOL IM's, and with IM you get an instant
>response that should allow replication of T30 with great simplicity. You
>also get SIP with Windows IM, which could allow discovery of the
>capabilities of the receiving fax terminal, probably even give you the
>color
>>of the operator's hair.
>>Terry Brookes
>www.polyteq.com
>>>> >From: "Dan Wing" <dwing at cisco.com>
> >To: "Dave Crocker" <dcrocker at brandenburg.com>
> >CC: "MAEDA Toru" <maeda at crf.canon.fr>, <ietf-fax at imc.org>
> >Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-fax-terminal-mode-goals-00.txt
> >Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 17:42:39 -0700
> >
> >
> >Yes, shared code is good.
> >
> >"Fax terminal mode" is an end-to-end service which has much more in
>common
> >with PSTN fax and T.38 fax than the SMTP model of multiple hops, storing
> >mail,
> >mailing lists, etc.
> >
> >IPP has more in common with transmitting documents than SMTP, and I still
> >say
> >that IPP can provide something more closer approaching the goals of "fax
> >terminal mode" than SMTP.
> >
> >For universal messaging, T.37/RFC2305 is the way to go. For duplication
>of
> >exact fax functionality on an IP network, T.38 is the way to go. While
> >T.38
> >is more difficult than an IETF text-based protocol, forcing SMTP to
> >essentially do 'SAML' (everyone by Dave, see RFC821 for a description of
> >SAML)
> >across multiple hops is hard.
> >
> >If you want something easier than T.38, IPP exists. IPP can be enhanced
>as
> >needed to support the features necessary to replicate fax.
> >
> >-d
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Dave Crocker [mailto:dcrocker at brandenburg.com]
> > > Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2001 7:55 AM
> > > To: Dan Wing
> > > Cc: MAEDA Toru; ietf-fax at imc.org> > > Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-fax-terminal-mode-goals-00.txt
> > >
> > >
> > > At 01:39 PM 6/28/2001, Dan Wing wrote:
> > > >I'm unclear on why the ability to fallback requires the original
> > > attempt be in
> > > >SMTP.
> > >
> > >
> > > The more the modes have in common, the more code they share. That
>means
> > > that the different modes have less to implement.
> > >
> > > There also might be operational impact, such as retaining an SMTP
> > > connection.
> > >
> > > Retaining interworking with email continues to be a nice ability, too.
> > >
> > > It also makes it easier to evaluate the efficacy of each, different
> > > mode. The fewer modes the better/simpler.
> > >
> > > d/
> > >
> > > ----------
> > > Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker at brandenburg.com>
> > > Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
> > > tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.273.6464
> > >
> >
>>_________________________________________________________________
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com