Subject: RE: IPP> IPP 2 IFAX Integration Time and Date Stamp

From: Dan Wing <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 13:37:49 -0700

>I thought I would send this out separate from the other issues, since this
>appears to be the most critical fax issue.
>
>The first question, from the IPP meeting that came from this discussion...
>"Where is the time stamp afixed to the document?  (i.e. At the source or
>the destination?)"  If the document image is ever stored between the two
>points these times could be very different, even without the consideration
>of time zone changes.

In the Internet Fax WG, there isn't a consensus on this because we
haven't documented the behavior of fax offramps (that is, email to
GSTN-based legacy fax gateways).  This document is on my to-do list
but I haven't had the time (or energy) to write the document.

>It was generally agreed by IPP participants that an IPP/IFAX compatible
>printer could be required to implement a real-time clock.  The IPP/IFAX
>feature would be a superset of the present IPP version 1.0, as it most
>likely will require the inclusion of new attributes and other features
>beyond the current specifications.  This is not a serious problem, since
>IPP is very extensible and is not restricted by any legacy printing
>applications.
>
>The second question concerns the legal issues... "Would the legal
>requirements of a real-time clock for current fax machines automatically
>apply to an IPP/IFAX device?"  If this answer is yes, there would exist a
>very strong incentive for a vendor not to build an IPP/IFAX device that
>does not have a real-time clock.

I'm not aware of any law establishing the legality of fax documents --
I believe it is only case law, no?  If so, a legal challenge would
be needed to establish a similar precedent.

What we should do, though, is follow the fax model as closely as 
possible to "ride along" with already-established case law.  These
are just lawyers, after all!  :-)

I'll let fax manufacturers comment on when the time/datestamp is
created by fax offramps today, but my experience has been the 
timestamp is created on-the-fly by the offramp device.

>Please let me know if there remains any issues regarding a time stamp.

-Dan Wing

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1998 19:34:49 -0500

>be needed to establish a similar precedent.

Its interesting that California courts have defined what constitutes a
"fax".  I believe this is the case in several states noably Wyoming and the
rural states where lawyers were quickly permitted to file motions and
pledings by fax under rules adopted by their Supreme Court.  This should be
important to note since the legal profession is one of the largest users of
fax and are traditionally early adopters of advanced fax technology. Lets
not forget the market for this.

For what its worth I checked Amazon.com with the search "law and fax".

If I recall there have been some other books on this probably out of print.

Law of Electronic Commerce Edi, Fax, and E-Mail : Technology, Proof, and
Liability 1994 Supplement by Benjamin Wright 
Our Price: $145.00 Paperback (January 1994) Aspen Publishers, Inc.; ISBN:
0316956414 

for those of you who want really really want to read up on this. Its a 1994
issue so I doubt there has been too much litigation on the issue since
then.  If I recall correctly most of the precedents on fax were derived
from the old telex days and the courts basically just applied the
judgements to a new technology which is what I suspect would happen with
IPP over IP.

In any event time/date stamping of IPP transactions is a necessity when
uses in the context of a facsimile service.

Richard Shockey
Shockey Consulting LLC                  
8045 Big Bend Blvd. Suite 110    
St. Louis, MO 63119
Voice 314.918.9020
Fax   314.918.9015
INTERNET Mail & IFAX : [email-masked]  
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<