IFX Mail Archive: RE: IFX> RE: Fax processing confirmation

RE: IFX> RE: Fax processing confirmation

From: McIntyre, Lloyd (Lloyd.McIntyre@pahv.xerox.com)
Date: Wed Feb 21 2001 - 20:22:27 EST

  • Next message: MAEDA toru: "RE: IFX> RE: Fax processing confirmation"

    For those wondering what value there is in providing notification
    information that distinguishes the processing status of each page, let me
    clarify by stating that it is possible to send a file that contains more
    than one encodings. Envision a document with both black-and-white and color
    pages. It is more efficient, both in file size and image quality, to code
    the black-and-white pages with a bi-level coder such as MMR (G4) and the
    color pages with a multi-level coder such as JPEG. TIFF-FX does not restrict
    both encoding being interleaved throughout the file. Given this condition,
    it is conceivable that a decoder may able to render the bi-level but not
    the color pages.

    The draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-Extension1-01.txt draft makes provision for
    signaling such mixed content documents/files so that a decoder will not be
    caught off guard.

    Lloyd

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Wagner,William [mailto:wwagner@netsilicon.com]
    > Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 2:30 PM
    > To: 'MAEDA toru'; McDonald, Ira; ifx@pwg.org; ietf-fax@imc.org
    > Subject: RE: IFX> RE: Fax processing confirmation
    >
    >
    > Maeda-san,
    >
    > Thank you for your response. I will address your questions as
    > best as I can.
    > I understand that IPP appears printer-oriented rather than Facsimile
    > oriented. Correcting that and adding the necessary facsimile
    > features is one
    > reason for the IPP FAX effort. We must consider what
    > notification parameters
    > are significant to the end user in his desire to communicate
    > a document. It
    > is not clear to me that these parameters are so different
    > between remote
    > printing and facsimile.
    >
    > Your questions were:
    >
    > 1) Does the current draft of the IPP notification include fax
    > processing
    > status which I proposed?
    >
    > I understand you have proposed "success/failure of document
    > processing and
    > page by page status from the receiver"
    >
    > In a TCP connection, the lower layers ensure the integrity of the
    > transmitted data (or report the inability to sustain a connection);
    > therefore, notification of transmission problems are already
    > covered in any
    > TCP based transmission..
    >
    > It is possible for any transmission (including telephone) to
    > be handled by
    > an intermediate server thereby losing the ability to report
    > on document
    > processing immediately as the document is transmitted. If there is no
    > intermediate server, IPP provides mechanisms for delivering processing
    > information during and immediately after transmission. If there is an
    > intermediate server, defined notification delivery mechanisms such as
    > MAIL_TO (EMAIL message) can still be used to provide
    > notification of final
    > disposition; it is assumed that sheet-by-sheet notification
    > by email would
    > not be practical.
    >
    > Further, the attributes already defined include the sheet-by-sheet
    > completion as well as satisfactory completion with job
    > statistics (e.g.,
    > number of sheets printed). The use of sheets rather than
    > pages reflects the
    > desire to communicate the end result in terms of hardcopy
    > emerging from the
    > receiver. The use of sheets avoids the question of two sided
    > or multiple
    > page up printing.
    >
    > (2) Which section in the IPP notification does describe it?
    >
    > The notification mechanism is very general, and only a subset
    > would apply to
    > fax. But see 5.3.2.1.3 Subscribed Job Events in
    > <draft-ietf-ipp-not-spec-06.txt>, especially Job-State-Changed and
    > Job_Progress *(printing a sheet). The sender can "subscribe"
    > to the desired
    > notification events when the job is sent. These events (such
    > as printing a
    > sheet) trigger a notification to the sender or other
    > designated destination
    > with appropriate attribute values.
    >
    > The subscription also defines the method of notification
    > delivery, of which
    > three methods have been documented in current internet drafts.
    > (<draft-ietf-ipp-indp-method-03.txt>,
    > <draft-ietf-ipp-notify-get-01.txt> and
    > <draft-ietf-ipp-notify-mailto-03.txt>)
    >
    > It is likely that, in a fax application, there will be a
    > preferred eventing
    > and delivery, so that the whole gamut of IPP capabilities need not be
    > addressed.
    >
    >
    >
    > (3) Which wg (IPP/fax/IPP FAX) is suitable to discuss it, if
    > the current
    > draft of IPP notification does not describe it?
    >
    > I suggest that the IPP FAX working group would be more than
    > happy to discuss
    > additional attribute and feature requirements from the facsimile
    > community.
    >
    >
    > (4) Will PWG IPP FAX wg define fax processing status in the
    > IPP notification
    > if required?
    >
    > The IPP FAX wg intends to add to the basic IPP capability
    > what is needed to
    > provide FAX functionality to the end users.
    >
    >
    > (5) Can EIFAX and T.37 Full Mode use the IPP notification for
    > fax processing
    > results?
    >
    > Although IPP Notification was not designed to be an all
    > purpose notification
    > capability, it includes may features and other facsimile
    > modes could use a
    > subset of the IPP notification capability. It is not
    > immediately clear to
    > me whether this would be a good idea, although, if devices included a
    > multi-mode Ifax capability, a common notification scheme may have
    > advantages.
    >
    > Best regards,
    >
    > Bill Wagner
    >
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: MAEDA toru [mailto:maeda.toru@canon.co.jp]
    > Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 3:11 AM
    > To: Wagner,William; McDonald, Ira; ifx@pwg.org; ietf-fax@imc.org
    > Subject: RE: IFX> RE: Fax processing confirmation
    >
    >
    > William-san
    >
    > Thank you very much for comments.
    > I do not care that the IPP notification may still be "work in
    > progress" or
    > not.
    > I think that the IPP notification describes print job results
    > but not fax
    > processing results.
    > We have to think about difference between print job results and fax
    > processing results.
    >
    > My questions are;
    > (1) Does the current draft of the IPP notification include
    > fax processing
    > status which I proposed?
    > (2) Which section in the IPP notification does describe it?
    > (3) Which wg (IPP/fax/IPP FAX) is suitable to discuss it,
    > if the current draft of IPP notification does not describe it?
    > (4) Will PWG IPP FAX wg define fax processing status in the IPP
    > notification if required?
    > (5) Can EIFAX and T.37 Full Mode use the IPP notification for fax
    > processing results?
    >
    >
    > Regards.
    >
    > Toru Maeda
    >
    >
    > At 12:22 01/02/20 -0500, Wagner,William wrote:
    > >Maeda-san,
    > >
    > >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
    > >notification approaches.
    > >
    > >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
    > >Proposed Standard.
    > >
    > >The IESG will also consider publication of Internet Printing
    > Protocol:
    > >Requirements for IPP Notifications <draft-ietf-ipp-not-05.txt> as an
    > >Informational RFC.
    > >
    > >
    > >The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
    > >final comments on this action. Please send any comments to the
    > >iesg@ietf.org or ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by March 5, 2001.
    > >
    > >Files can be obtained via
    > >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipp-not-spec-06.txt
    > >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipp-not-05.txt "
    > >
    > >Regards,
    > >
    > >William A. Wagner (Bill Wagner)
    > >Director of Technology
    > >Imaging Division
    > >NETsilicon, Inc.
    > >781-398-4588
    > >
    > >
    > >-----Original Message-----
    > >From: MAEDA toru [mailto:maeda.toru@canon.co.jp]
    > >Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 4:45 AM
    > >To: McDonald, Ira; ifx@pwg.org
    > >Subject: IFX> RE: Fax processing confirmation
    > >
    > >
    > >Ira-san
    > >
    > >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.
    > >
    > >Regards.
    > >
    > >Toru Maeda
    > >
    > >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.
    > > >
    > > >Cheers,
    > > >- Ira McDonald, consulting architect at Sharp and Xerox
    > > > (active member of IETF IPP WG, author of 'ipp:' URL scheme)
    > > > High North Inc
    > > >
    > > >-----Original Message-----
    > > >From: Dan Wing [mailto:dwing@cisco.com]
    > > >Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 10:26 AM
    > > >To: MAEDA toru
    > > >Cc: ietf-fax@imc.org; 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?
    > > >
    > > >-d
    > >
    > >--------------------
    > >MAEDA TORU
    > >MIE Development Div. 2
    > >CANON Inc.
    > >--------------------
    >
    > -----------------------------------
    > $B%-%d%N%s3t<02q<R(J
    > $B1GA|;vL35!(JMIE$B?d?J%;%s%?!<(J
    > $B1GA|;vL35!(JMIE$BBh#23+H/It(J
    > $BA0ED!!E0(J
    > 146-8501$B!!El5~ETBgED6h2<4];R#3!]#3#0!]#2(J
    > $BEEOC!!(J03-3757-9738$B!"(JFAX$B!!(J03-3757-8205
    > -----------------------------------
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 21 2001 - 20:22:54 EST