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

From: Gomer Thomas (gomer@lgerca.com)
Date: Wed, Nov 18 1998


Message-ID: <36530603.A9FD468E@lgerca.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 12:38:11 -0500
From: Gomer Thomas <gomer@lgerca.com>
To: www-tv@w3.org
Subject: Re: I-D submission "Requirements on TV Broadcast URIs"

I like the term "coordinate with", or perhaps we could use the term
"harmonize", which seems to be widely used by standards bodies to mean the same
thing -- although a common usage is "attempt to harmonize with", since one can
never be sure how amenable to harmonization the other bodies will be -- and for
this reason it is not usually a requirement, merely a statement of
desirability.

Craig A. Finseth wrote:

>    >    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



--
Gomer Thomas
LGERCA, Inc.
40 Washington Road
Princeton Junction, NJ 08550
phone: 609-716-3513
fax: 609-716-3503