IFX Mail Archive: Re: Fwd: RE: Question on FaxConnect Results..

IFX Mail Archive: Re: Fwd: RE: Question on FaxConnect Results..

Re: Fwd: RE: Question on FaxConnect Results..

Dan Wing (dwing@cisco.com)
Thu, 4 Feb 1999 16:23:18 -0800 (PST)

On Thu, 4 Feb 1999 18:03:55 -0600, Richard Shockey wrote:

> >In IPP the sender is already identified, so I don't believe an
> >IFX-compliant sender needs to incur the overhead of generating a per-page
> >watermark -- other mechanisms exist in IPP (and SMTP for the ifax case) to
> >identify the IFX sender.
> My theory is that the watermark or something like it distinguishes the
> document transaction as being in a "facsimile service mode" vs a remote
> printing operation .. the document looks like a fax.

Can't the generated coverpage (aka "flag page") say:

** Sender: mailto:dwing@cisco.com

as the printer or print server is generating a flag page already for any
shared printer, I don't understand why IFX has special requirements w.r.t.
a flag page (or coverpage).

> As for sender identification in IPP.. its not verbose ... you've got a URI
> and thats it and I'm not sure that is good enough.

Well, something akin to the comment or personal name in RFC822
From: headers would be sufficient -- can a parenthetical string
be included after the URI, which IFX-compliant receivers could
include on the coverpage?

I would bet that most flag pages don't generate a "to" indication -- as it
is implied that the person printing the job is the person who wants the
job. I don't know IPP well enough to say either way, though, of course.

> >Not to mention that multiple hops, each identifying themselves by
> >slightly occluding the top of each page cause degradation -- something
> >that need not occur (and is not expected by users to occur) with digital
> >documents and digital transmission.
> An IPP/ IFAX transaction would be point to point, unless you are gatewaying
> of course.

I'm not even talking about gatewaying.

Today, all GSTN fax transactions are point-to-point. But after being
printed it is re-scanned and re-transmitted the sender identification and
sometimes the entire first 1/2" of the page has been corrupted. Surely
everyone has seen faxes like this?

I don't see a need for a similar corruption to be foisted upon a digital
transmission medium when out-of-band identification is quite available,
and coverpages can be generated by the printing device itself.

This problem is all taken care of today without the sending device (the
user's PC) generating a coverpage -- the print server or the printer
itself decides, based on its configuration, if a printer flag page should
be generated -- and some printers will generate a trailing page, too,
indicating end-of-print-job. Quite nifty technology. I don't see how fax
has stricter requirements: with printing you want to identify who
generated the print job so the ream of Postscript that was misinterpreted
as ASCII can be pasted inside that person's cubicle.

-Dan Wing