Internet-Draft Daniele Giordano Expires: 23 April 2008 Oct 21, 2007 priority of transport method for fax over IP draft-giordano-fax-method-priority-00 Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). Abstract In order to fax over IP networks different methods can be used. In many countries fax are legal documents. What is the best way to deliver fax? What is the most reliable method? This document proposes a priority of transport method for fax over IP. Daniele Giordano [Page 1] Internet-Draft priority of transport method for fax over IP Oct 2007 Table of Contents 1. Conventions Used In This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Implementation and Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 6 Daniele Giordano [Page 2] Internet-Draft priority of transport method for fax over IP Oct 2007 1. Conventions Used In This Document The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 2. Introduction In order to fax over IP networks different methods can be used. In many countries fax are legal documents. What is the best way to deliver fax? What is the most reliable method? This document proposes a priority of negotiation of transport method for fax over IP. The goal of this draft is offer the best assurance in fax delivery. The discussion is not focus on the efficiency of signaling voice protocols over IP networks. Traditionally, faxes uses TDM techniques with ensured synchronization throughout the network. This strict clocking allowed faxes to use complex audio techniques and high rates of throughput. Given the burst nature of packet based networks the clocking synchronization is not guaranteed so the transmission of facsimile can be problematic. There are three techniques for sending faxes over IP consisting of fax pass through, real-time fax relay and fax store and forward. 3. Implementation and Operations The fax over IP transmission starts from the customer premises equipment e.g. ATA, POTS or PSTN gateway, fax server, etc. These devices must negotiate a facsimile method using this priority: 1) CONSIDERATION and FIRST SELECTION ---------------------------------------- | fax isn't an interactive application | ---------------------------------------- | | ---------------------------------------------- -->| fax isn't a real time critical application | ---------------------------------------------- | | ------------------------------------------------------------ -->| my first choice is Store and Forward fax on the Internet | ------------------------------------------------------------ Note: Store and Forward faxing retry continuously until successful and offer never busy fax service. ------------------------------------------ | if Store and Forward is not supported | | or negotiated pass to second selection | ------------------------------------------ Daniele Giordano [Page 3] Internet-Draft priority of transport method for fax over IP Oct 2007 2) SECOND SELECTION ---------------------------------- | fax is a real time application | ---------------------------------- | | ------------------------------------- -->| my choice is real time fax relay | ------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- | if fax relay is not supported or | | negotiated pass to third selection | -------------------------------------- 3) THIRD SELECTION ----------------------------------- | last choice is fax pass-through | ----------------------------------- Redundancy transmission techniques, error correction mode and variation of simple duration are not mentioned because the scope is adopt a rigid priority during negotiation of fax over IP method. Daniele Giordano [Page 4] Internet-Draft Ethernet preamble variation Oct 2007 4. IANA Considerations The entirety of this document concerns IANA Considerations for transmission methods of facsimile over IP. 5. Security Considerations This document is not directly concerned with security. 6. References 6.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September 1981. 6.2. Informative References Daniele Giordano [Page 5] Internet-Draft Ethernet preamble variation Oct 2007 Author's Address Daniele Giordano Email: d.giordano@fastpiu.it Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Intellectual Property The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA). Daniele Giordano Expires: 23 April 2008 [Page 6]