Richard Shockey | 1 Aug 04:27 1997
Picon

Re: Security requirements for internet fax

>
>	Does the working group feel that the integration specification should
>provide for privacy which is:
>
>		1.  Optional
>
>		2.  Required

I believe it is clearly OPTIONAL.

>
>	Does the working group view the use of email-based authentication
>mechanisms for the internet/fax service to be:
>
>		1.  Optional
>
>		2.  Required

REQUIRED would be nice .. but what is the methodology of authentication? If
no clearly defined technique is avaiable then clearly it would be optional.
I believe we are at a stage where we have most of the elements for a S&F
standard.   Is this a area where Vcard has some place?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Richard Shockey                  
8045 Big Bend Blvd. Suite 110    
St. Louis, MO 63119
Voice 314.918.9020
Fax   314.918.9015
INTERNET Mail: rshockey <at> ix.netcom.com  
(Continue reading)

Richard Shockey | 1 Aug 04:51 1997
Picon

Re: Session mode SMTP, firewalls, etc.

At 11:57 PM 7/31/97 +0100, Graham Klyne wrote:
>At 08:01 AM 7/21/97 +0300, Elazar (Azi) Ronen wrote:
>>Why should an S&F protocol (SMTP) be the one chosen for real time ? 

Why not? From the end users point of view the result is exactly the same.
I get my document and I get it NOW!

>It seems to me that Internet fax must inevitably address the issue of
>Group3 fax/Internet e-mail gateways at some point.  I think you would agree
>that we don't really want to introduce a third protocol (and the
>correponding increase the number of gateways to be considered).

Here Here! Plus .. Mr. Crocker is entirely correct, and I quote:

"It's important that they not be a major focus, right now, since one cannot
have a gateway until one has something to do the gatewaying to.  We
currently have no fax over the Internet standard.  When we do have one,
then we will need to gateway it."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Richard Shockey                  
8045 Big Bend Blvd. Suite 110    
St. Louis, MO 63119
Voice 314.918.9020
Fax   314.918.9015
INTERNET Mail: rshockey <at> ix.netcom.com  
           OR  rshockey <at> stlnet.com
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

(Continue reading)

Richard Shockey | 1 Aug 04:45 1997
Picon

Re: addressing for fax/internet messages

>Absent such objections, the question then reduces to one of syntax.  How
>does the working group feel about the WIDE addressing syntax?

I find the WIDE scheme perfectly acceptable. I do have some implementation
issues that I would like to have clarified. Since I am not a internet mail
person I am curious how you would prevent unauthorized use of the gateway. 

>From a practical point I view this naming convention as only a
RECOMMENDATION for gateway/relay devices and it should be clearly labeled
as such. From a editorial point of view it should be placed in an appendix
and NOT the main body of the specification

I am of course assuming that the addition of the  <at> IFAX.domain.com poses no
significant administrative burden and it is assumed that any qualified
internet mail address could be used by a MTA to offramp the mail to a G3
machine.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Richard Shockey                  
8045 Big Bend Blvd. Suite 110    
St. Louis, MO 63119
Voice 314.918.9020
Fax   314.918.9015
INTERNET Mail: rshockey <at> ix.netcom.com  
           OR  rshockey <at> stlnet.com
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Minhas Harvinder Singh | 1 Aug 06:54 1997
Picon

Real time communication on Internet-Survey


Hi all...
Im writing a survey report on Real Time Communication on Internet.
I would really appreciate if someone could give me some references.
and Im also interested in knowing if this topic has been covered in some past survey.
Thanx
Harvinder Minhas

Mike Lake | 1 Aug 09:56 1997
Picon

Re: Security requirements for internet fax

At 13:31 31/07/97 -0700, you wrote:

>Does the working group view the use of email-based authentication
>mechanisms for the internet/fax service to be:

FYI: the ITU has standardised two methods for fax security.  Both methods
provide:

        Mutual authentication
        Confidentiality (encryption)
        Message integrity
        Confirmation of receipt

The methods are documented in T.30 and T.36.

Best regards

Mike Lake
MD/CEO Wordcraft International
Business: http://www.wordcraft.co.uk
Personal: http://www.homepages.pcfax.com/mlake

Richard Shockey | 1 Aug 15:17 1997
Picon

Re: fax/mail data format

At 01:34 PM 7/31/97 -0700, you wrote:
>>From the WIDE document:
>
>>2.2  Formats
>
>
>	The WIDE proposal takes the position that the TIFF-F being produced
>contains more than the minimum necessary detail for Basic Internet Fax.  Is
>this correct?

IMHO YES .... TIFF-F has all the elements for an appropriate Content-Type
for Basic ..repeat Basic Internet fax. I would assume that the first
logicial enhancement would be TIFF-FX [color]. I would also want to point
out that Adobe Systems MUST clarify its position on any intellectual
property issues.

>	If there is a smaller, core use of TIFF-F which the working group wants
to specify as the standard, can the additional capabilities in the currnt
>specification be easily factored into a separate section?

I cannot think of any.

I might add that I find that the WIDE proposal makes DSN optional.... I
believe it should be a REQUIREMENT.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Richard Shockey                  
8045 Big Bend Blvd. Suite 110    
St. Louis, MO 63119
Voice 314.918.9020
(Continue reading)

Richard Shockey | 1 Aug 17:11 1997
Picon

TIFF File Naming Conventions


To quote from the WIDE Proposal....
-------------------------------------
2.2  Formats

Standard Internet mail headers and MIME content packaging also
are used.  IFAX gateways may choose to use the contents of the
RFC822 headers to form a cover page, in addition to any cover
page included in the document body.

Multiple fax documents may be aggregated within a single Internet
mail message, by using Multipart/mixed.
-----------------------------------

I believe it will be necessary to establish some guidelines for the
naming of TIFF files by Writer/Readers to simplify the process of
coding/decoding pages and or files where Multipart/mixed is used.

Clearly it would be easier if all Writer/Readers used MultiPage TIFF files 
however this seems impracticial.

Therefore there should be a standard methodology for file/page naming.

Such as  xxxx0001.tif for Page one 
         xxxx0002.tif for Page two etc. 

Comments .. or is this just a "implementation" issue? 

Do we need to incorporate detailed recomendations for Reader/Writers?

(Continue reading)

James Rafferty | 1 Aug 22:51 1997
Picon
Picon

Re: fax/mail data format

Dave Crocker wrote:  
>	The WIDE proposal takes the position that the TIFF-F being produced
>contains more than the minimum necessary detail for Basic Internet Fax.  Is
>this correct?
>

>	If there is a smaller, core use of TIFF-F which the working group wants to
>specify as the standard, can the additional capabilities in the currnt
>specification be easily factored into a separate section?
>
The TIFF-F 03 level draft has two levels of values for fields:   

1.  Minimum set of fields and values that all TIFF-F readers should support 
for maximum compatibility (see Table 3.9.1.1 - Fields for TIFF-F ; Right
column
shows the "minimum values")

2.  Full set of fields and values that may be supported (see left column of 
Table 3.9.1.1 headed values.  

So, the TIFF-F draft already documents a minimum set of fields and values;
these
should be compared to those fields and values that the WIDE contributors
believe they need.  

WIDE proposes:

		Compression    3         MH

               Resolution     2         inch
(Continue reading)

Internet-Drafts | 2 Aug 17:55 1997
Picon

I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-fax-tiff-reg-01.txt

	Title		: Tag Image File Format (TIFF) - image/tiff 
                          MIME Sub-type Registration
	Author(s)	: G. Parsons, J. Rafferty
	Filename	: draft-ietf-fax-tiff-reg-01.txt
	Pages		: 5
	Date		: 1997-08-01
	
This document describes the registration of the MIME sub-type
image/tiff.  The baseline encoding is defined by [TIFF].  
This document refines an earlier sub-type registration 
in RFC 1528 [TPC.INT].

Internet-Drafts are available by anonymous FTP.  Login wih the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address.  After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-ietf-fax-tiff-reg-01.txt".
A URL for the Internet-Draft is:
ftp://ds.internic.net/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-fax-tiff-reg-01.txt

Internet-Drafts directories are located at:

	Africa:	ftp.is.co.za
	
	Europe: ftp.nordu.net
		ftp.nis.garr.it
			
	Pacific Rim: munnari.oz.au
	
	US East Coast: ds.internic.net
	
(Continue reading)

Elazar (Azi) Ronen | 3 Aug 08:16 1997
Picon
Picon

Re: Fax Gateways are irrelevant ?

At 23:30 31/07/97 +0300, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
>
>	It's important that they not be a major focus, right now, since one cannot
>have a gateway until one has something to do the gatewaying to.  We
>currently have no fax over the Internet standard.  When we do have one,
>then we will need to gateway it.
>

I believe that the definition of fax over Internet, is a gateway definition.
In other words - the primary use of the Internet fax protocol would be to 
connect traditional fax devices. With all respect to other image devices and 
applications - real PSTN connects, G.3 compliant fax devices is the target. 

You can understand this clearly from the charter, and when looking at the
market. 

Therefor, you can not avoid PSTN issues, and it seems like no one says
otherwise (like the long debate of addressing). The result is 
a gateway and the protocol should be addressing this. 

Azi

Elazar (Azi) Ronen                  Phone: +972 3-6455383
VP, Research & Development          FAX  : +972 3-6475057
RADLINX Ltd.                        Email: azi <at> radlinx.rad.co.il          
24 Raoul Wallenberg St.		    -----------------------------------
Tel-Aviv                            WEB  : http://www.radlinx.rad.co.il
Israel 69719			    -----------------------------------

(Continue reading)


Gmane