IFX Mail Archive: IFX> FW: [Another take on IPP Fax from Ter

IFX Mail Archive: IFX> FW: [Another take on IPP Fax from Ter

IFX> FW: [Another take on IPP Fax from Terry Brookes]

From: McDonald, Ira (imcdonald@sharplabs.com)
Date: Fri Jul 06 2001 - 00:39:15 EDT

  • Next message: Hastings, Tom N: "RE: IFX> FW: [Another take on IPP Fax from Terry Brookes]"

    Hi folks,

    The following is from a recent thread on the IETF IFax WG list.


    Anyone think Terry's wrong about the viability of IPP Fax?
    If he's right, we're probably all wasting our time on this list.

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

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Terry Brookes [mailto:brookes_terry@hotmail.com]
    Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 6:34 AM
    To: imcdonald@sharplabs.com; dwing@cisco.com
    Cc: ietf-fax@imc.org; maeda@crf.canon.fr; dcrocker@brandenburg.com
    Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-fax-terminal-mode-goals-00.txt

    Hi Ira,

    >Do you just dislike IPP?
    Nope, think it's great and would like to see a URI on every business card,
    but from a business standpoint it doesn't look like a very good way of
    meeting Mr Maeda's requirements. As far as I can tell he's looking for a way

    to use the popularity of e-mail as the basis for a simple low cost T30-like
    internet fax machine to replace the 100 million or so traditional fax
    machines in use. There are estimated to be half a billion fax users, this,
    presumably, is the target market. I believe its a reasonable assumption that

    a very large proportion of these users now have e-mail addresses; a rapidly
    growing number use Instant Messaging ( a number which will accelerate
    dramaticaly when Windows XP appears); but only a very small and exclusive
    group (the IPP developers ? printer manufacturers ?) appears to have any
    knowledge whatsoever of IPP. From a technical standpoint Dan's proposal of
    IPP may be OK, from a marketing standpoint it doesn't look like a very good
    idea because the user won't have anyone to send to, because, despite the
    valiant efforts of IPP people, hardly anyone actualy uses it. IM could (not
    would!) be a better bet on the basis that it could work very much like T30
    AND have a large number of people already using it. Not IMPP, which the Blue

    Window Software Corporation (Redmond WA) is in the process of killing, but
    Windows IM which will probably be the de facto IM standard by the time Mr
    Maeda's machine is ready for production.
    My own belief is that FOIP will only be successfull if it's as easy to use
    as a regular fax machine. POP/SMTP has proved to be much too complex to set
    up, IPP doesn't have a user base even if it *is* imbedded in every printer,
    so maybe IM will be the answer...who knows?


    >From: "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com>
    >To: "'Terry Brookes'" <brookes_terry@hotmail.com>, dwing@cisco.com
    >CC: ietf-fax@imc.org, maeda@crf.canon.fr, dcrocker@brandenburg.com
    >Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-fax-terminal-mode-goals-00.txt
    >Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 10:27:47 -0700
    >Hi Terry,
    >Do you just dislike IPP?
    >For IPP Fax to work, IPP does NOT need to be ubiquitous. It just
    >needs to be ubiquitous in deployed PRINTERS. Very few printers
    >shipped in calendar 2001 that did not have IPP protocol support.
    >Probably NONE will ship in calendar 2002 without IPP protocol
    >I agree that SMTP is ubiquitous, but it doesn't (and can't ever)
    >do realtime capabilities negotiation, by its very nature.
    >Certainly such protocols as IMPP (your suggestion) are utterly
    >inappropriate for sending large documents by VALUE (like IPP)
    >and not by REFERENCE.
    >Could you explain your implacable opposition to IPP Fax, please?
    >- Ira McDonald, consulting architect at Sharp and Xerox
    > High North Inc
    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: Terry Brookes [mailto:brookes_terry@hotmail.com]
    >Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 8:30 AM
    >To: dwing@cisco.com
    >Cc: ietf-fax@imc.org; maeda@crf.canon.fr; dcrocker@brandenburg.com
    >Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-fax-terminal-mode-goals-00.txt
    >I'd re-phrase the following-
    > >IPP exists. <
    >This would be more accurate-
    > >IPP barely exists<
    >Also 'IPP FAX' certainly does NOT exist...yet.
    >IPP also requires infrastrucure in the form of IPP servers, so it may not
    >meet the stated requirements of 'using existing infrastructure'.
    >If SMTP really doesn't work for fax terminal mode then strategicaly the new
    >Windows Instant Messenger could be a much better bet. It's likely to become
    >a de facto standard for the non-AOL IM's, and with IM you get an instant
    >response that should allow replication of T30 with great simplicity. You
    >also get SIP with Windows IM, which could allow discovery of the
    >capabilities of the receiving fax terminal, probably even give you the
    >of the operator's hair.
    >Terry Brookes
    > >From: "Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com>
    > >To: "Dave Crocker" <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
    > >CC: "MAEDA Toru" <maeda@crf.canon.fr>, <ietf-fax@imc.org>
    > >Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-fax-terminal-mode-goals-00.txt
    > >Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 17:42:39 -0700
    > >
    > >
    > >Yes, shared code is good.
    > >
    > >"Fax terminal mode" is an end-to-end service which has much more in
    > >with PSTN fax and T.38 fax than the SMTP model of multiple hops, storing
    > >mail,
    > >mailing lists, etc.
    > >
    > >IPP has more in common with transmitting documents than SMTP, and I still
    > >say
    > >that IPP can provide something more closer approaching the goals of "fax
    > >terminal mode" than SMTP.
    > >
    > >For universal messaging, T.37/RFC2305 is the way to go. For duplication
    > >exact fax functionality on an IP network, T.38 is the way to go. While
    > >T.38
    > >is more difficult than an IETF text-based protocol, forcing SMTP to
    > >essentially do 'SAML' (everyone by Dave, see RFC821 for a description of
    > >SAML)
    > >across multiple hops is hard.
    > >
    > >If you want something easier than T.38, IPP exists. IPP can be enhanced
    > >needed to support the features necessary to replicate fax.
    > >
    > >-d
    > >
    > > > -----Original Message-----
    > > > From: Dave Crocker [mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com]
    > > > Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2001 7:55 AM
    > > > To: Dan Wing
    > > > Cc: MAEDA Toru; ietf-fax@imc.org
    > > > Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-fax-terminal-mode-goals-00.txt
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > At 01:39 PM 6/28/2001, Dan Wing wrote:
    > > > >I'm unclear on why the ability to fallback requires the original
    > > > attempt be in
    > > > >SMTP.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > The more the modes have in common, the more code they share. That
    > > > that the different modes have less to implement.
    > > >
    > > > There also might be operational impact, such as retaining an SMTP
    > > > connection.
    > > >
    > > > Retaining interworking with email continues to be a nice ability, too.
    > > >
    > > > It also makes it easier to evaluate the efficacy of each, different
    > > > mode. The fewer modes the better/simpler.
    > > >
    > > > d/
    > > >
    > > > ----------
    > > > Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
    > > > Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
    > > > tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.273.6464
    > > >
    > >
    >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

    Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 06 2001 - 00:44:38 EDT