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: McIntyre, Lloyd (Lloyd.McIntyre@pahv.xerox.com)
Date: Thu Oct 26 2000 - 14:01:19 EDT

  • Next message: Hastings, Tom N: "IFX> FW: IPP> RFC 2987 - Registration of Charset and Languages Media F eature Tags"

    This sounds reasonable to me.

    Lloyd

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com]
    > Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2000 3:57 PM
    > To: McIntyre, Lloyd; 'gleclair@agentz.com'; Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM;
    > pmoore@peerless.com
    > Cc: ifx@pwg.org; Buckley, Robert R
    > Subject: RE: IFX> Thoughts after first meeting
    >
    >
    > I support Paul's idea of separating document format (FAX-specific
    > water-marking, legal requirements between parties, etc.) from
    > discover/transport (which would be common between FAX. Then
    > the latter
    > could be used alone for intranet transfer within an
    > organization where the
    > FAX water marks and other legal stuff would get in the way.
    > In order to
    > make sure that there isn't a divergence between the two documents, the
    > former document will require the latter, while the latter
    > does NOT require
    > the former. The former will NOT duplicate anything in the
    > latter document.
    >
    > Ok?
    >
    > Tom
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: McIntyre, Lloyd [mailto:Lloyd.McIntyre@pahv.xerox.com]
    > Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 10:11
    > To: 'gleclair@agentz.com'; Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM;
    > pmoore@peerless.com
    > Cc: ifx@pwg.org; Buckley, Robert R
    > Subject: RE: IFX> Thoughts after first meeting
    >
    >
    > I can understand a desire to split the spec in order to
    > appease both camps.
    > I am, however, concerned about the inevitable divergences
    > that result from
    > splitting.
    >
    > Might it be reasonable to retain one specification and make
    > watermarking an
    > application space dependent requirement? Documents
    > distributed with the
    > desired to realize fax legal status, would include the
    > necessary watermark
    > provisions.
    >
    > Integration of IFax with the copier and scanner distribution
    > applications is
    > essential - we must strive for a universal messaging environment.
    >
    > Lloyd
    >
    > > -----Original Message-----
    > > From: gleclair@agentz.com [mailto:gleclair@agentz.com]
    > > Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 2:34 PM
    > > To: Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM; pmoore@peerless.com
    > > Cc: ifx@pwg.org
    > > Subject: 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.
    > >
    > > Regards,
    > > 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 : Thu Oct 26 2000 - 14:10:21 EDT