IFX Mail Archive: RE: IPP2IFAX BOF and Name Change

IFX Mail Archive: RE: IPP2IFAX BOF and Name Change

RE: IPP2IFAX BOF and Name Change

Michael Crawford (mcrawford@iready.com)
Mon, 1 Mar 1999 09:46:27 -0800

I believe Don is correct...preservation of high quality documents should be
key. However, the implication is that some magic is going to occur at the
far end if the far end device DOESN'T have the ability to preserve...i.e.
does not have the resolution or colors. Regardless of negotiation quality
(none to some), the far end determines the quality of the document printed.
If we are talking fax, then I question what IPP does that isn't already
defined in the current RFC2301 to 2306 solution...which includes MDN
negotiation solution and allows the far end device to print at its best
quality. Without some means for the user to be involved in the decision
tree (a user profile for instance), it is not clear that "preservation of
quality" goal can be met, since this can be, and most likely will be
subjective.

If real time negotiation is the benefit of IPP to iFAX transport, then I
also agree that messaging is not what the WG should be concerned with.
However, remote printing from a scanner mounted on a fax machine to a far
end printer also mounted on a fax machine is within the pervue of the IPP
spec. This may or may not require real time negotiation. And if we
consider that T.30 is also not required then IPP does not get in the way of
or replicate T.38 efforts underway.

Restricting the IPP2IFAX effort to satisfying fax to fax transport must be
the first tenant of IPP2IFAX. However, if you don't add anything to the
current T.37 features other than psuedo-real time operation, then we need to
spell that out a little more clearly.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: don@lexmark.com [SMTP:don@lexmark.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 1999 6:04 AM
> To: Stuart_McRae@lotus.ssw.com
> Cc: ifx@pwg.org
> Subject: Re: IPP2IFAX BOF and Name Change
>
> It seems to be the real issue is in the area of fidelity. The
> predictability as
> to the appearance of the document at the receiving end is very, very high.
> Rather than simply calling it "Reliable Document Delivery" some like
> "Preserved
> Fidelity Document Delivery" or something else that is more in line with
> the
> preservation of the appearance of the document would be more
> appropropriate.
>
> **********************************************
> * Don Wright don@lexmark.com *
> * Director, Strategic & Technical Alliances *
> * Lexmark International *
> * 740 New Circle Rd *
> * Lexington, Ky 40550 *
> * 606-232-4808 (phone) 606-232-6740 (fax) *
> **********************************************
>
>
>
>
> Stuart_McRae%lotus.ssw.com@interlock.lexmark.com on 03/01/99 06:50:35 AM
>
> To: "ifx@pwg.org"%Domino.ssw.com@interlock.lexmark.com
> cc: (bcc: Don Wright/Lex/Lexmark)
> Subject: Re: IPP2IFAX BOF and Name Change
>
>
>
>
> >I'm traveling this week.. but some quick input here could be helpful.
>
> I personally have no problem with trying to recast the effort into
> responding
> to some form of business need, rather than on emulating existing fax
> semantics
> - since that seems to me what is being said.
>
> How about: Reliable Document Delivery?
>
> Reliable (i.e. the user is able to rely on it) seems to me to be what this
> is
> about. Right?
>
> Documents seem to be accepted parlance for the content that requires what
> we
> are doing (formal communication).
>
> Delivery (to a printer) is the scope.
>
> I think we can then define Reliable as encompassing the necessary end user
> comfort levels, and organisational service levels, for immediacy, surety
> of
> receipt, legal admissibility, authentication, confidentiality, etc.
>
> Stuart
>
>
>