Lee more concisely expressed the gist of my comment. As a starting point, I suggest that the intent of IFX is to provide for the secure, verifiable internet transmission of information necessary to generate a precise facsimile of an original document (hardcopy or soft) at one or more authenticated destinations. There are associated functions related to determining the limits of precision (resolution, color, size, media.) There are associated functions dealing with notification and verification of delivery. There is an intent to use the IPP protocol.
William A. Wagner (Bill Wagner)
Director of Technology
From: Ron.Bergman@Hitachi-hkis.com [mailto:Ron.Bergman@Hitachi-hkis.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 7:23 PM
To: Lee.Farrell@cda.canon.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: RE: IFX> TIFFFx
I agree with your statement. I believe that the issue was mentioned in
Boston but there was no real discussion or agreement. The Portland meeting
should review our requirements for IFX and then look at the alternatives to
TIFF to see if any of these alternatives are consistent with those goals.
I don't think this made it out to the reflector before. My apologies if
it's a repeat.
From: Farrell, Lee
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 1:20 PM
Subject: RE: IFX> TIFFFx
I think Bill is raising an issue that is fairly core to the goals and
purpose of IPP Fax. If we're open to changing this requirement, shouldn't
we set out to agree on our (new?) priorities/requirements/goals -- before
selecting a solution alternative?
Or do most people feel that there is already general consensus on these
I certainly would like to consider what Ron is drawing up. An "IPP
Solution", based on the IPP protocol but guaranteeing certain minimum
attributes (esp data formats) may be a good approach. I think restricting
the format to PDF may be unnecessarily limiting.
I have never been a strong proponent of requiring compatibility with other
forms of FAX or IFAX. I think that even the inclusion of the term FAX in the
initiative name is outdated. PSTN FAX and IPPFAX are very different in use,
capabilities and market. IPP FAX does not and should not try to emulate FAX;
it is a distinctly different document transfer capability intended for a
distinctly different world.
I think IFAX has suffered from trying to tie internet fax and PSTN fax; I
don't see why we should bother tieing into IFAX. In general, the IFAX
groups, which have been working hard on internetting fax and coming out
with some ingenious if contorted solutions, do not recognize or appreciate
the IPP approach. Tiff FX appeared to be convenient. But it still needed
extensions and it has been plagued by intellectual property issues. I see no
reason to "stick it out".
Of course, just my personal opinion.
During the last meeting, we had a very long discussion regarding TIFF-FX,
Adobe and IPPFax. We agreed that it was at least time to consider
alternatives to TIFF-FX. We also wrote a note to Adobe explaining what we
intended to do with TIFF-FX and asked for their comments. To date, we have
not heard back from them.
Ron Bergman volunteered to draw up a proposal providing an IPP solution to
identify the compression schemes used in the job. He has indicated that he
will have something ready for the Portland meeting. Another alternative
proposed was to use PDF as the required PDL.
I would like to get some feed back from the group. What do you think of
a) Stick it out with TIFF-FX
b) Use an IPP solution (or would prefer to wait until the proposal has been
c) Use PDF
d) other (please specify)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 15 2002 - 15:31:53 EDT