Network Working Group K.Mimura
Internet-Draft: draft-ietf-fax-gateway-options-06.txt K.Yokoyama
Intended Category: Informational T.Satoh
K.Watanabe
C.Kanaide
TOYO Communication Equipment
April 14 2003
Guideline of optional services for Internet FAX Gateway
Status Of This Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full
conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
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 obsolete 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 Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
An Internet FAX Gateway provides functions which translate a
facsimile between the general switched telephone network (GSTN) and
the Internet. This document provides guidelines of optional services
and examples of an Internet FAX Gateway, with respect to the onramp
gateway and offramp gateway.
This document does not intend to specify the actions to which the
IFax offramp and onramp gateways (defined in [3]) conform.
This document covers drop duplication, automatic re-transmission,
error behavior, when sending a return notice, and the keep log for an
offramp gateway. Also covered are examples of authorization by DTMF
(Dual Tone Multi-Frequency) and the keep log for an onramp gateway.
Mimura, et. al. Expires October 2003 [Page1]
Internet Draft Guideline of optional services April 2003
for Internet FAX Gateway
Table Of Contents
1. Introduction
1.1 Key words
1.2 Intellectual property
2. Optional Services for an Offramp Gateway
2.1 Drop duplications
2.2 Automatic re-transmission in the occurrence of a delivery error
2.3 Error behavior
2.4 When sending a return notice
2.5 When a transmitting error occurs in a return notice
2.6 Keep log
3. Optional Services for an Onramp Gateway
3.1 Example of user authorization
3.2 Keep log
4. Security Considerations
5. References
6. Full Copyright Statement
7. Author's Address
1. Introduction
An Internet FAX Gateway can be classified as an offramp gateway and
onramp gateway. This document provides information on the guidelines
of optional services and examples of an Internet FAX Gateway. This
document covers drop duplication, automatic re-transmission, error
behavior, when sending a return notice, and the keep log for an
offramp gateway. Also included are examples of authorization by DTMF
and the keep log for an onramp gateway. A more detailed definition of
onramps and offramps is provided in [1].
Information on recommended behaviors for Internet FAX Gateway
functions are defined in [2].
The scope of the Internet FAX Gateway defined in this document is
shown below.
1) The format of image data is a data format defined by "simple mode"
in [3].
2) The operational mode is "store and forward," as defined in Section
2.5 of [1].
1.1 Key words
The key words "SHOULD" and "MAY" in this document are to be
interpreted as described in [4].
1.2 Intellectual property
The IETF has been notified of intellectual property rights claimed in
regard to some or all of the specification contained in this
document. For more information, consult the online list of claimed
Mimura, et. al. Expires October 2003 [Page2]
Internet Draft Guideline of optional services April 2003
for Internet FAX Gateway
rights at <http://www.ietf.org/ipr.html>.
2. Optional Services for an Offramp Gateway
2.1 Drop duplications
Sometimes overlapped mail is received by an offramp gateway. In such
cases the offramp gateway is required to drop the overlapped mail.
The purpose of this is to prevent the offramp gateway from
transmitting the overlapped facsimile data to a facsimile device over
the GSTN.
For example, an MTA (Mail Transfer Agent) is set so that it puts mail
with a different destination address in one mailbox. Some kinds of
MTAs copy mail (with the same contents) in one mailbox when the MTA
receives broadcast mail (mail of more than one destination address).
Then, the offramp gateway uses POP to receive the mail from the MTA.
As a result, the offramp gateway receives duplicate mail from the
MTA.
Discussion of the duplicate message detection mechanism is entrusted
to other documents.
2.2 Automatic re-transmission in the occurrence of a delivery error
An offramp gateway MAY add a function that automatically tries to
send facsimile data again if delivery failure occurs. If this
function is added, the retry times and retry interval MAY be
specified as options by the administrator of the offramp gateway.
If this function is set, a return notice SHOULD be sent only when the
specified number of retries has been completed and the last facsimile
transmission is an error. When transmission is suspended by the
error, transmission is again started to send an error page on the
next transmission.
For example, assume that an offramp gateway is sending a total of
five pages of facsimile data. But, an error occurs after two pages of
normal transmission and the transmission is stopped. The offramp
gateway should re-transmit the facsimile data, beginning with page 3.
2.3 Error behavior
Retransmission behavior depends on the kinds of errors.
In Calling Errors, such as a busy signal, line errors, and so on, the
offramp gateway can perform retransmission.
In Connecting Errors, such as a paper error, stop event error - but
not a Fax error (voice response) - the offramp gateway sends a return
notice to the sender without any retransmission.
Thus, Calling Errors can probably be recovered, but Connecting errors
can rarely be recovered.
Mimura, et. al. Expires October 2003 [Page3]
Internet Draft Guideline of optional services April 2003
for Internet FAX Gateway
2.4 When sending a return notice
When an offramp gateway receives broadcast mail, there are two ways
to send a return notice.
1) An offramp gateway sends a return notice as soon as an error
occurs.
2) An offramp gateway sends a return notice after every completion of
the specified number of transmissions.
These features should be options selected by the user.
Example
The source user is requested to send one facsimile data to 20,000
addresses, but encounters many errors for more than 1,000 addresses.
If an offramp gateway sends a return notice as soon as an error
occurs, the source user would receive more than 1,000 return notices
from the offramp gateway. But, the source user can receive a return
notice as soon as one error occurs.
If the offramp gateway sends one return notice for every ten
transmissions, the source user would receive only one-tenth of the
return notices.
2.5 When a transmitting error occurs in a return notice
When an offramp gateway fails in the transmission of a return notice,
the Internet FAX Gateway SHOULD process the notice in either of the
following ways.
1) When the gateway has a log information preservation function, the
error information SHOULD be recorded to a log, and processing
SHOULD end. At this time, the administrator of the gateway system
SHOULD be notified of these errors using a specific process (for
example, SMTP).
2) If the gateway does not have a log information preservation
function, the administrator SHOULD be told about the failure, and
processing SHOULD end.
3) If the gateway has a high hardware capability and sufficient time
margin, it is a beneficial service to perform the following
processing. When notice of a result fails in transmission, the
fixed time interval is vacated, and the output of the notice is
repeated for a specified number of times. Even if the specified
number of times continues to fail, the error information is
recorded to a log, and processing is finished. Also, at this time,
the administrator of the gateway system SHOULD be notified of
these errors by a specific process (for example, SMTP).
Mimura, et. al. Expires October 2003 [Page4]
Internet Draft Guideline of optional services April 2003
for Internet FAX Gateway
2.6 Keep log
An offramp gateway MAY have a function which keeps the information
listed below as a log. For security and message traces, the Internet
FAX Gateway MAY use the following format for a system log or event
log of the Operation System.
- Date and time when transmit request is received
- Source address
- Destination address
- Date and time when transmitted over the GSTN
- Date and time when transmission over the GSTN was finished
- Number of real transmitted pages
- Byte count of transmitted data
- Type of data (resolution)
- Occurrence of errors
- Number of retries automatically sent
- Date and time of transmission of delivery notice
The goal of the log information preservation function is mainly to
improve security or charge calculation processing.
When the hardware system is equipped with recording media (HDD, FDD,
etc.), the log information SHOULD be saved as a log file.
The following are three opportunities to save log information.
1) When an offramp gateway receives a distribution demand.
2) When an offramp gateway starts distribution.
3) When an offramp gateway ends distribution.
When the hardware system does not use a recording medium, log
information cannot be saved locally. In this case, it is desirable
to use the save function at other PCs using existing network
communication means, such as a function to save log information as a
file using Network File System, SMTP, SNMP, or the function to
periodically print log information.
To strengthen security, it is desirable to save log information in
the Internet FAX Gateway using a database system.
3. Optional Services for an Onramp Gateway
3.1 Example of user authorization
An onramp gateway MAY have a user authorization function to confirm
that the user is authorized to transmit data. In the case of onramp
action, there are many methods to send authentication information.
The method chosen depends on the provider's services. Consequently,
an example is not described.
Mimura, et. al. Expires October 2003 [Page5]
Internet Draft Guideline of optional services April 2003
for Internet FAX Gateway
3.2 Keep log
An onramp gateway MAY have a function that keeps information as a
log. For security and message traces, the Internet FAX gateway MAY
use the following format of a system log or event log of the
Operation System.
- Date and time when transmission request was received
- Source address
- Destination address
- Date and time of transmission over the GSTN
- Date and time when transmission over the GSTN was finished
- Date and time of transmission over the Internet
- Number of real transmitted pages
- Byte count of transmitted data
- Type of data (resolution)
- Occurrence of errors
- Number of retries sent automatically
- Date and time of transmission of delivery notice
The purpose of the log information preservation function is mainly to
improve security or charge calculation processing.
When the hardware system is equipped with recording media (HDD, FDD,
etc.), the log information SHOULD be saved as a log file.
The following are three possible opportunities to save log
information.
1) When an onramp gateway receives a distribution demand.
2) When an onramp gateway starts distribution.
3) When an onramp gateway ends distribution.
When a hardware system without a recording medium is used, log
information cannot be saved locally. In this case, it is desirable to
use a function that saves at other PCs using existing network
communication means, such as a function to save log information as a
file using Network File System, SMTP, SNMP, or a function that
periodically prints log information.
In order to strengthen security, it is desirable to save log
information in the Internet FAX Gateway using a database system.
4. Security Considerations
An offramp and onramp gateway MAY have a user authorization function
to confirm that they are authorized to transmit facsimile data.
Encryption of facsimile data could be performed by the existing SMTP,
using an available security technique.
The security consideration sections of [3] apply to this document.
Mimura, et. al. Expires October 2003 [Page6]
Internet Draft Guideline of optional services April 2003
for Internet FAX Gateway
5. References
[1] L. Masinter, "Terminology and Goals for Internet Fax", RFC 2542,
March 1999.
[2] K. Mimura, K. Yokoyama, T. Satoh, C. Kanaide, "Internet FAX
Gateway Functions", draft-ietf-fax-gateway-protocol-09.txt, April
2003.
[3] K. Toyoda, H. Ohno, J. Murai, and D. Wing, "A Simple Mode of
Facsimile Using Internet Mail", RFC 2305, March 1998.
[4] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
6. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards, in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.
Mimura, et. al. Expires October 2003 [Page7]
Internet Draft Guideline of optional services April 2003
for Internet FAX Gateway
7. Author's Address
Katsuhiko Mimura
TOYO Communication Equipment CO., LTD.
2-1-1 Koyato, Samukawa-machi, Koza-gun
Kanagawa, Japan
Fax: +81 467 74 5743
Email: mimu@macroware.co.jp
Keiichi Yokoyama
TOYO Communication Equipment CO., LTD.
2-1-1 Koyato, Samukawa-machi, Koza-gun
Kanagawa, Japan
Fax: +81 467 74 5743
Email: yokoyama@macroware.co.jp
Takahisa Satoh
TOYO Communication Equipment CO., LTD.
2-1-1 Koyato, Samukawa-machi, Koza-gun
Kanagawa, Japan
Fax: +81 467 74 5743
Email: zsatou@toyocom.co.jp
Ken Watanabe
TOYO Communication Equipment CO., LTD.
2-1-1 Koyato, Samukawa-machi, Koza-gun
Kanagawa, Japan
Fax: +81 467 74 5743
Email: knabe@toyocom.co.jp
Chie Kanaide
TOYO Communication Equipment CO., LTD.
2-1-1 Koyato, Samukawa-machi, Koza-gun
Kanagawa, Japan
Fax: +81 467 74 5743
Email: c-miwa@mail.nissan.co.jp
Revision history
00a 31-Oct-2000 Initial draft.
01a 21-Feb-2001 Rebuild next definition
2.6 keep log
3.2 keep log
Added next definition
2.5 When a transmitting error occurred in return notice
02a 22-May-2001 Rebuild next definition
2.6 keep log
3.2 keep log
4. Security Considerations
Mimura, et. al. Expires October 2003 [Page8]
Internet Draft Guideline of optional services April 2003
for Internet FAX Gateway
03a 28-June-2001 Rebuild next definition
3.1 Example of User authorization
04a 19-September-2001 Rebuild next definition
4. Security Considerations
4a 20-March-2002 Corrections and clarifications.
Dropped reference to RFC2119.
Moved Intellectual Property after section 1.
Fixed Security considerations.
4b 25-March-2002 Reword first paragraph of section 2.1
Arrange 5. References again.
06 14-April-2003 Corrections and clarifications.
Mimura, et. al. Expires October 2003 [Page9]