46th IETF, Washington DC, 9-Nov-1999, 1300-1400
Chair : Richard Shockey
Reported by Graham Klyne with assistance from Richard Shockey
Approximately 35 Attendees
Slide was presented reminding the participants of what the QUALDOCS Problem Statement is:
A. The transmission and reception of final form documents ( namely those presented in a format that describes their final rendering) is an essential global communications service.
B. Current services on the Internet or the GSTN have one or more severe limitations tor restrictions that may not be suitable for all document transmissions.
Intro - Richard Shockey
Agenda bashing - 5 MIN
Review of Minneapolis BOF - 10 MIN
Goals document review - 15 MIN
Charter bashing -10 MIN
Work directions - ?
After a suggestion from the floor charter bashing was moved up after a short review of what transpired at the last QUALDOCS BOF at IETF 44 in Minneapolis.
REVIEW OF MINNEAPOLIS BOF
Approximately 40 People attended the last BOF and the general problem was discussed.
Problems with Internet fax as it currently stands:
- SMTP as transport: cannot exchange capabilities before sending document; DSN and MDN can be repudiated
- IPP as transport: designed primarily as print service; no mandatory-to-implement file format
There are several candidates for QUALDOCS transport: SESSION SMTP, IPP, and maybe in the future Instant Messaging and Presence (IMPP).
SESSION SMTP calls for restructuring of SMTP processing; IPP as a transport already has many of the required characteristics.
In any event there must be coordination with other IETF work groups principally IPP and FAX and ITU Study Group 8.
A more detailed account of the BOF can be down loaded from :
Charter that has been posted to the list was summarized. There was a question from the chair on whether there were any objections or amendments to the proposed Charter. No objections were raised. Chair indicated that he would prepare the charter for submission to IETG for WG approval.
GOALS DOCUMENT REVIEW
QUALDOCS requirements have been potentially documented in <draft-klyne-qualdocs-goals-02.txt>
Graham Klyne reviewed the major points of the Goals Document that a QUALDOCS protocol should provide the following services.
A. Timely Delivery
B. Proof of Delivery and Reciept. The differences between DNS and MDN reciept notification were outlined.
C. Time and Date Stamping on all transactions.
D. Data format support. In particular mandated support for elements of RFC 2301 TIFF-FX files.
E. Quality of output In particular that the quality of output be determined by the recipients capabilities.
F. Capabilities Exchange
G. Addressing Support
H. Legal Identity Exchange The possible inclusion of vCard data.
I. Legal Issues
J. Cover Pages
L. Interworking with other document delivery services This would be gateways services to SMTP IFAX or GSTN Fax
M. Easy to implement Easy to implement represents the requirements that all classes of devices should be able to use the proposed protocol
N. Reliable in a Internet Environment.
O. Use existing infrastructure
P. Shared features
Q. Support for Unified Messaging.
Slide was presented outlining how QUALDOCS work might progress.
Jan 2000 Submit Internet Draft of Goals and Objectives for Quality Document Distribution as a informational RFC or submit as an addendum to RFC 2542 (Goals and Terminology for Internet Fax)
April 2000 Submit Internet Draft for QUALDOCS service ( Based on Selected Protocols)
June 2000 Submit Internet Draft of Requirements for QUALDOCS Service Interworking
Richard Shockey: The Draft of a Requirements for QUALDOCS Service Interworking is optional based on the consensus of the WG. It may, in fact, not be needed.
Richard Shockey: Paul Moore of Peerless Systems is working on an IPP-based QUALDOCS protocol document. IMPP is a conceivable candidate, but no concrete proposals are in sight. SESSION SMTP is a conceivable candidate, but no concrete proposal is in sight.
Discussion from the floor opened up.
May need to be careful that RFC 2301 profiles are "properly segmented out" from other parts of the specification.
Need to change charter language about "submitting Internet Draft" to reflect "submitting document for publication as RFC".
Larry Masinter: there are many requirements, and some are difficult, so 20 weeks to analyze them all seems to be rather optimistic.
Richard Shockey: this is not defining a new protocol, but augmenting an existing protocol, so an aggressive schedule should be reasonable to achieve.
Larry Masinter: Goals document says -- many things noted in RFC 2542 are not met by existing Internet fax. May need to emphasize the RFC 2542 goals that are not met by current implementations.
Discussion whether goals is a new document or an addendum to RFC 2542.
John Klensin: If the resulting goals are mainly _additional_ goals then goals document may work as an addendum.
After a request for a show of hands he consensus of the room seems to be that the goals document is a new document, albeit with very great level of reference to to RFC 2542. After some additional discussion the following Directions and Deliverables was presented
April 2000 Submit Internet Draft of Goals and Objectives for Quality Document Distribution as for publication as a RFC.
June 2000 Submit Internet Draft for QUALDOCS service for publication as a RFC ( Based on Selected Protocols)
August 2000 Submit Internet Draft of Requirements for QUALDOCS Service Interworking as a RFC
October 2000 Close QUALDOCS WG.
Meeting was adjourned.