IFX Mail Archive: RE: IFX> some UIF issues...thoughts anyone

IFX Mail Archive: RE: IFX> some UIF issues...thoughts anyone

RE: IFX> some UIF issues...thoughts anyone? [terminology: Client vs. Sender and Host vs. Receiver]

From: McDonald, Ira (IMcDonald@crt.xerox.com)
Date: Tue Jun 19 2001 - 11:44:44 EDT

  • Next message: Hastings, Tom N: "RE: IFX> some UIF issues...thoughts anyone? [terminology: Client vs. Sender and Host vs. Receiver]"

    Hi,

    OK - two specs.

    In UIF spec, we should talk about (I think) lowercase client and
    server (which are much more accurate than unqualified Sender and
    Receiver) or initiator and responder (generic protocol terms).

    In IPP Fax spec, the term (job) Sender is COMPLETELY inaccurate
    when describing that this Sender needs to query capabilities
    from 'printer-uif-capabilities' with Get-Printer-Attributes.
    The entity may decide to never send a job, because the printer
    is not sufficiently capable.

    In IPP Fax spec, I strongly object (even with definitions) to the
    use of the Sender and Receiver for IPP client and IPP Printer object
    (in RFC 2910/2911). It is called 'IPP Fax' - it's a profile of
    behavior of the two basic IPP software entities.

    Cheers,
    - Ira McDonald, consulting architect at Sharp and Xerox
      High North Inc

    -----Original Message-----
    From: John Pulera [mailto:jpulera@minolta-mil.com]
    Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 10:29 AM
    To: Hastings, Tom N; Ira at Xerox XR&T McDonald (E-mail)
    Cc: IPP-Fax Group
    Subject: RE: IFX> some UIF issues...thoughts anyone? [terminology: Client
    vs. Sender and Host vs. Receiver]

    I prefer the terms Sender and Receiver for the reasons Tom mentions, as long
    as we define what we mean exactly by these terms in a "Terms Used" section.
    I don't think we should use IPPFAX before the terms Sender or Receiver in
    the UIF spec, as we are trying to keep UIF non-protocol-specific.
     
    John
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com]
    Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 2:27 PM
    To: jpulera@minolta-mil.com; Ira at Xerox XR&T McDonald (E-mail)
    Cc: IPP-Fax Group
    Subject: RE: IFX> some UIF issues...thoughts anyone? [terminology: Client
    vs. Sender and Host vs. Receiver]

    Ira is suggesting IPPFAX Server, instead of IPPFAX Receiver or IPPFAX
    Printer. (We're all in agreement *not* to use "host").
     
    However, to me a Server can act as a Sender or a Receiver, so I like the
    terms Sender and Receiver, because they are more clearly *roles* that hosts
    and servers can play. The conformance requirements of Sender vs. Receiver
    apply to the role.
     
    Tom
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com]
    Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 13:56
    To: jpulera@minolta-mil.com
    Cc: IPP-Fax Group
    Subject: RE: IFX> some UIF issues...thoughts anyone? [terminology: Client
    vs. Sender and Host vs. Receiver]

    On the second issue, I believe the original issue from the minutes was
    whether to use the IPP/1.1 terminology for IPPFAX Sender and IPPFAX
    Receiver, which would be IPPFAX Client and IPPFAX Printer, not IPPFAX Host.
    To me the term Host is much too vague. To me a Host could be a sender or a
    receiver.
     
    So I'm quite opposed to using the term "Host". Whether to continue using
    the IPPFAX terms Sender and Receiver or go back to the IPP/1.1 terms of
    Client and Printer is harder to decide. If we go back to the IPP Client and
    Printer terms we would make it clear that the term Printer means the
    software entity that accepts requests and returns responses, as in IPP, and
    need not actually have any hardware associated at all. The advantage of the
    term Receiver, is that no hardware is suggested by the name.
     
    However, the problem with using the term "receiver" is that it affects the
    names of some of the attributes ("receiver" vs. "printer"). Also we are
    stuck with the IPP/1.1 terminology of Printer Description attributes and the
    'printer-description' attribute group name used as a keyword in the
    Get-Printer-Attributes request.
     
    The attribute names affected are:
     
    5.1 ippfax-sending-user-identity (text(MAX)) operation/Job
    Description attribute 9
    5.2 ippfax-receiving-user-identity (text(MAX)) operation/Job
    Description attribute 9
    5.3 ippfax-sender-identity (name(255)) operation/Job Description
    attribute 10
    5.4 ippfax-receiver-identity (name(255)) Printer Description
    attribute 10
     
    We should still keep the terms Sending User and Receiving User, but we could
    change the terms Sender to Client and Receiver to Printer.
    Then the attributes would be named:
     
    5.1 ippfax-sending-user-identity (text(MAX)) operation/Job
    Description attribute 9
    5.2 ippfax-receiving-user-identity (text(MAX)) operation/Job
    Description attribute 9
    5.3 ippfax-client-identity (name(255)) operation/Job Description
    attribute 10
    5.4 ippfax-printer-identity (name(255)) Printer Description
    attribute 10
     
    Comments?
    Tom
    -----Original Message-----
    From: John Pulera [mailto:jpulera@minolta-mil.com]
    Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 09:45
    To: IPP-Fax Group
    Subject: IFX> some UIF issues...thoughts anyone?

    While revising the UIF spec, some issues have surfaced and it would be great
    if we can generate some discussion on them:

    1) The MIME type for UIF data.
            From the IPPFAX teleconferences held on May 30 & June 6, there was
    consensus to use "image/tiff; application=faxbw" and "image/tiff;
    application=faxcolor". The primary argument for using these was that it is
    the same MIME type used for Internet Fax, and so there would be less of a
    conformance issue with an IPPFAX device serving as a gateway for Internet
    Fax documents.
            However...If we are going to make UIF a protocol-independent data
    format (which was also agreed at the May 30 telecon), I do not think think
    we should directly associate it with Internet Fax. Perhaps "image/tiff;
    application=uif" would be a better compromise in that UIF would be made
    independent of Internet Fax while existing TIFF readers can still do
    something with the UIF data.
            In addition, is it valid to use the same MIME type as Internet Fax
    if the data requirements for UIF and TIFF-FX are not identical? (TIFF-FX is
    more strict with resolutions and allowed image widths)
     
    2) The use of the terms "Client" to mean the "Sender" and "Host" to mean the
    "Receiver".
        Is "Client" interchangeable with "Sender" and "Host" with "Receiver"?
    Should we be using the more generic terms "Client" and "Host" instead of
    "Sender" and "Receiver" in the UIF spec since the UIF spec is NOT
    protocol-specific?
     
    Does anyone have any thoughts on these issues?
     
    Thanks,
     
    John



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 19 2001 - 11:45:19 EDT