> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Shockey [SMTP:email@example.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 1999 7:17 PM
> To: Nick Webb
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
> Subject: RE: Questions to be addressed...
> >Are we considering that a new generation of regular cheap fax machines
> >could have this Internet QualDocs mode in them?
> I should certainly hope so... who wants a niche application protocol?
> >>The notion IMHO is that we have needed a Store and Forward as well as a
> >>point to point oriented protocol.
> >Can you elucidate? This is the first I've heard about a store and forward
> >option. IPP doesn't restrict this (an IPP server could be a store and
> >forward point on the path to the ultimate receiver) but certainly f*x is
> >usually point to point and the simple IPP model is the same.
> The Store and Forward mode has been defined...it Email based RFC
> I'm generally guessing that devices will become multi-modal as well as
> multi functional. The transport layer for the document will be decided at
> point and time of transmission. How do do you want to send this document
> GSTN, IFAX, IPP/QD mode, UPS Red, UPS Blue, FedEx Snail Mail, Pony Express
> ....Choice is good. Standards are wonderful, thats why there are so many
> them. :-)
> >>like will network administrators punch holes in their fire walls for the
> >>IPP traffic and how simply will it be to set up your little $200 boxes
> >>IPP servers on the network.
> >This is a common issue with IPP, but to tell the truth this is about as
> >much of an issue as providing an outside line in most large companies.
> >this problem is real, but very overstated.
> Ah.. an optimist... there's one born every minute! :-) If the application
> is compelling, which I think what we want to accomplish is, the hole in
> the firewall for the IPP port will be drilled open.
*** Firewall admin types are happy to drill for a well known service
i.e. a socket. I believe IPP has two, one for capabilities exchange
one for data (sort of like FTP has two). Filtering on sockets is a
good, widely accepted security mechanism, but only if the IT
in general accepts the service as having enough anti-spoofing and
not present a mechanism that can be exploited to get at things other
the service intends. So there will be some reluctance to allow the
until some real world experience is documented. Chicken and
use until you get experience, can't get experience without using it,
I believe the sockets were listed in Mn., have to look at my notes,
or I'm sure its
in the IPP specs.
Does anyone know if the security services (TLS for example) are
> Richard Shockey
> Shockey Consulting LLC
> 8045 Big Bend Blvd. Suite 110
> St. Louis, MO 63119
> Voice 314.918.9020
> Fax 314.918.9015
> INTERNET Mail & IFAX : firstname.lastname@example.org
> eFAX 815.333.1237