Maeda-san and Bill,
Thanks for the clarifications, Bill.
Note that the IESG 'last call' is on the _model_ for IPP
notifications. None of the actual IPP notifications
delivery methods (including 'ippget' in-band IPP notifications,
most appropriate for a fax-like experience) are up for IESG
'last call' yet.
And the page-by-page job notifications are OPTIONAL in the
IPP notifications model spec.
Personally, I don't think 'indp' (IPP Notifications Delivery
Protocol) which requires that the IPP Client take the role
of HTTP _server_ and accept incoming HTTP connections from
the IPP Printer (in order to receive notifications) is at all
appropriate for a fax-like behavior over the Internet.
Of course, I think IPP _does_ have good future potential for
realtime fax-like behavior over the Internet. It just isn't
- Ira McDonald, consulting architect at Sharp and Xerox
High North Inc
PS - Note that all IPP sessions use an HTTP connection for a
transport protocol and thus have firewall issues for public
Internet use (just like end-to-end SMTP does).
From: Wagner,William [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 9:23 AM
To: 'MAEDA toru'; McDonald, Ira; email@example.com
Subject: RE: IFX> RE: Fax processing confirmation
I think Ira McDonald's message may have been misunderstood. The IPP
notification may still be "work in progress". But, as indicated by the IESG
message below, the basic mechanisms are up for last call. These documents,
although they deal with many possible notification events and mechanisms, do
include "page by page confirmation from the receiver" (or more exactly,
sheet by sheet confirmation.)
Further, although various notification mechanisms are identified, it is
assumed that sheet-by-sheet job progress notification is applicable
primarily to real-time notification connections which include the "indp"
method <draft-ietf-ipp-indp-method-03.txt> as well as the "get" method
<draft-ietf-ipp-notify-get-01.txt> alluded to by Ira.
I suggest that the IP FAX community may be interested in commenting on these
I would also suggest that the various IFAX approaches each have advantages
in certain environments. T.37 uses virtually universal EMAIL capabilities.
T.38 (non-gateway) uses voice over IP, which suggests a voice/fax
capability. IPP has great flexibility, it can utilize developments in its
host HTTP protocol, and provides for authentication and encryption. It is
unclear that internet fax must settle on a single protocol.
The IESG announcement, dated Mon 2/19/2001. follows.
"The IESG has received a request from the Internet Printing Protocol
Working Group to consider Internet Printing Protocol (IPP):IPP Event
Notification Specification <draft-ietf-ipp-not-spec-06.txt> as a
The IESG will also consider publication of Internet Printing Protocol:
Requirements for IPP Notifications <draft-ietf-ipp-not-05.txt> as an
William A. Wagner (Bill Wagner)
Director of Technology
Thank you very much for detailed information about the IPP notification
that it does not support page by page confirmation from the receiver.
Fax wg should discuss about fax processing status.
PWG IPP FAX WG may discuss about the fax processing status also.
At 12:59 01/02/17 -0800, McDonald, Ira wrote:
>Hi Dan and IFax folks,
>Please note that IPP notifications (in-band via IPP channel
>or out-of-band via SMTP or 'reverse' HTTP) are still
>work-in-progress in the IETF IPP WG.
>IPP native protocol itself does NOT provide confirmation that
>any pages have actually been printed without polling (by the
>IPP Client) of the IPP Printer.
>The IEEE/ISTO PWG (Printer Working Group) has chartered IPPFax
>project, but it isn't very far along yet. The IETF declined
>to charter IPPFax as an IETF WG, so this is probably quite
>far away from an IETF 'standards track' RFC.
>- Ira McDonald, consulting architect at Sharp and Xerox
> (active member of IETF IPP WG, author of 'ipp:' URL scheme)
> High North Inc
>From: Dan Wing [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 10:26 AM
>To: MAEDA toru
>Cc: email@example.com; Claudio Allocchio; Hiroshi Tamura
>Subject: Re: Fax processing confirmation
>On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 18:57 +0900, MAEDA toru wrote:
> > Wing-san
> > How much confidence of ifax transmission in Simple Mode ?
> > Does no response mean a good confirmation ?
> > I want to add Fax processing confirmation in Full Mode.
> > In Full Mode, the image file is send as TIFF file over SMTP.
> > There will be some possibilities to fail to print or process
> > the TIFF file by some reasons. These reasons may be
> > incorrect TIFF parameter for the receiver
> > or out of capabilities TIFF parameter for the receiver.
> > When you put the 10 pages of document on the scanner
> > and send by ifax Full Mode and you get the confirmation sheet
> > with 9 pages received successfully, you will find something
> > wrong with the scanner or the transmission. You will check
> > the scanner or the system and may ask to the user of the receiver.
> > Comparing to the E-mail system, you can not get information about
> > how many pages the receiver successfully printed but just received.
> > You may find that the attached file is not be able to be processed
> > nor printed by the Email receiver with your inspiration.
> > The user of Full Mode ifax will have confidence of the ifax
> > transmission when the transmitter prints confirmation sheet
> > with the number of pages printed on the receiver and also
> > the number of page in error.
> > Any comments?
>IPP provides this sort of confirmation today. Why not use IPP?
MIE Development Div. 2
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 21 2001 - 02:43:05 EST