IFX Mail Archive: RE: IFX> Thoughts after first meeting

IFX Mail Archive: RE: IFX> Thoughts after first meeting

RE: IFX> Thoughts after first meeting

From: gleclair@agentz.com
Date: Mon Sep 25 2000 - 17:34:08 EDT

  • Next message: McIntyre, Lloyd: "RE: IFX> Thoughts after first meeting"

    Sorry to have not been in attendance.

    I would agree with the split proposed by Paul.

    Other WG efforts may benefit from the 'negotiated image format'
    effort independent of the FAX issues.

    Greg LeClair
    P1394.3 PPDT Chair

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: owner-ifx@pwg.org [mailto:owner-ifx@pwg.org]On Behalf Of Harry
    > Lewis/Boulder/IBM
    > Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 12:47 PM
    > To: pmoore@peerless.com
    > Cc: ifx@pwg.org
    > Subject: Re: IFX> Thoughts after first meeting
    > Life always gets interesting when an essential "must have" overlaps
    > directly with "no way Josť"!
    > The motivation for "QualDocs" apparently embraced both sets of
    > requirements - the "IPP Fax" AND broader "driverless" printing goals. I
    > support Paul's recommendation to split the specification as an effective
    > way to address the (powerful but unique) semantics of IPP-FAX (legal
    > issues etc.) Still, I feel both efforts are essentially follow-on to IPP
    > and need to be remain coordinated to prevent rampant divergence.
    > Harry Lewis
    > IBM Printing Systems
    > pmoore@peerless.com
    > Sent by: owner-ifx@pwg.org
    > 09/25/2000 11:47 AM
    > To: ifx@pwg.org
    > cc:
    > Subject: IFX> Thoughts after first meeting
    > Firstly, thanks to all who attended the initial IPP Fax (as I must now
    > learn to
    > call it) meeting in Chicago.
    > The passionate (did I hear heated, even) debate was a good sign; people
    > think
    > this is important and we all have strong ideas about what should be
    > delivered.
    > Ron Bergman has posted detailed minutes for the meeting (thanks
    > Ron) but I
    > will
    > repeat here the major points.
    > 1. The name was changed from Qualdocs to IPP Fax. Most people felt
    > Qualdocs was
    > not clear and did not translate well for non USA attendees.
    > 2. The charter was updated and accepted. No major changes were made to the
    > charter except to specifically state the we were building on IPP. Tee
    > modified
    > version is on the web site http://pwg.org/qualdocs/index.html.
    > 3. We thrashed out what we meant by 'high bars' low bars' 'negotiated' ,
    > etc.
    > with regards to image parameters.
    > What did become apparent was a split in people's views about how this
    > technology
    > is to be used. The FAX attendees saw this as a 100% FAX product - whereas
    > the
    > broader imaging attendees (printers, copiers, scanners) saw wider
    > usefullness in
    > having a standardised, negotiated image format (as well as Faxing).
    > The wider uses include things like copier to copier copying, network
    > scanning,
    > ad-hoc printing, etc.
    > Specifically the debate came down to whether or not the transmitted
    > documents
    > needed to be watermarked or stamped in some way. For the pure fax people
    > this
    > was a must, for the wider uses this would be a disaster. I am sure there
    > will be
    > other divisions too. I had crafted the charter to allow for the
    > wider uses
    > as
    > well as the fax case but no form of word crafting can get round this
    > fundamental
    > divide. The solution I propose is that we split the spec into two pieces.
    > A) A common agreed image format with some form of negotiation /
    > discovery.
    > This
    > can be used regardless of whether or not the transport is doing 'IPP fax'
    > or
    > not. We will end up specifying the rules associated with saying that you
    > support
    > 'application/tiff-fx' as a document format.
    > B) A set of enhancements to IPP to get 100% into Faxing on the internet.
    > Includes identity exchange, security, watermarking, etc. We would make A a
    > pre-requisiste
    > Actually splitting might well speed things up (divide and conquer)
    > What do people think?
    > Paul Moore

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 25 2000 - 17:31:17 EDT