Re: I-D submission "Requirements on TV Broadcast URIs"

From: Craig A. Finseth (fin@finseth.com)
Date: Wed, Nov 18 1998


Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 10:30:09 -0600 (CST)
Message-Id: <199811181630.KAA28741@isis.visi.com>
From: "Craig A. Finseth" <fin@finseth.com>
To: tenkate@natlab.research.philips.com
Cc: gomer@lgerca.com, www-tv@w3.org
Subject: Re: I-D submission "Requirements on TV Broadcast URIs"

   >    o  The URI scheme must be compatible with solutions already adopted
   >       in standardisation bodies such as ATSC, DVB, and DAVIC.
   >         ...
   > 
   > I see no reason to include this point.  None of the ATSC, DVB, or
   > DAVIC proposed schemes meet the other requirements.  Thus, requiring
   > compatability with something that does not meet the requirements is
   > confusing at best.

   If we have contradicting requirements, we need to balance somehow.
   I don't agree the solution is by just kicking out a requirement.

   You could argue to remove requiring compatibility with the ATSC URI 
   scheme, because it is a not yet approved scheme. On the contrary, 

Umm, we (Gomer and I through DASE) are working on the ATSC scheme.
Consider other _ATSC_ proposals to be abandoned.

   my impression is that DASE and our efforts are pretty aligned, such 
   that we can expect the same URI scheme will get defined. Is this correct
   ?
   It would mean that this requirement gets fulfilled in this respect.

Well, in the sense that the other organizations drop their existing
schemes to adopt one that meets the (other) requirements, we gain
compatability.

Seems awfully circular, though.

   The purpose of this requirement is to acknowledge that there are
   other bodies also defining URI schemes. Somehow, we need to align.
   Ignoring is not the way achieving that.

Then it should be stated this way.  Something like:

	Any actual scheme must be coordinated with ATSC, DVB, DAVIC, etc.
	and must be usable by those systems (assuming an implementation,
	of course).

Saying "must be compatable with" means that we must do, for example,
DVB.  Which prevents us from being compatable with DAVIC.  This is
not a useful situation to be in.

   It seems people are not aware that the DAVIC URI scheme is something
   existing and approved. The scheme is being implemented in the world.
   I don't think we can simply ignore that, at least when trying to get 
   something uniform and standardized.

We're not suggesting "ignore."

	...
   I think this is a fundamental difference in the model 
   and I like to make that explicit. I think my wording does 
   do that, by associating 'host' with 'transport'. If you 
   have a better wording, please suggest.

I very much agree with you about the difference.  It's going to be
hard to convey to typical TCPIP people.  I don't have any better
suggestions for now (:-(.

Craig