Re: draft-zigmond-tv-url-02 discussion on

From: Michael A. Dolan (
Date: Sun, Aug 22 1999

Message-Id: <>
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 13:59:43 -0700
To: (IETF List)
From: "Michael A. Dolan" <>
Cc: (WWW TV List)
Subject: Re: draft-zigmond-tv-url-02 discussion on

Hash: SHA1


"End run around"?  Why do folks on ietf think this I-D is a 
conspiracy of one kind or another?  If we're not trying to evade W3C, 
then we must be marketing folks looking for some justification of a 
product idea (one person's comment).  Or if not that, then we are an 
evil industry group trying to force their will on IETF (paraphrased 
several other folks' comments).  I wish I could convince you this 
paranoia is unfounded so that we could move past this.

But the real issue here is the review process for Informational 
RFC's, for which there seem to be pretty different opinions.  Here's 
my view based on IETF publications:

The recent thread, "Tighter admission policy for I-Ds", has been very 
interesting.  But Informational submissions are still permitted, and 
there are far, far stranger things published by IETF than this I-D.  
And, it was very clear that there was no concensus on that thread to 
eliminate Informational submissions, or even to significantly alter 
their requirements or review process.  And, even if the concensus was 
drifting towards such changes, the proposals being made have no place 
affecting existing submissions process.

We seem to also keep coming back to the technical merits of the 
submission.  RFC 2026, sections 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 describe the process 
to be used for Informational submissions.  There does not appear to 
be any requirement to obtain technical concensus or approval of the 
group, in fact there are clear statements to the contrary.

The review process does *not* require approval or endorsement of 
outside organizations (such as W3C, etc).  [But FYI, I have been 
working with the WWW-TV chairman on how best to proceed with these 
and other TV related publications, particularly ones where there is 
existing practice; as well as ones that will welcome future open 
technical review.  Some items are likely not appropriate for IETF to 

IETF has clearly established itself as the home for URI publication, 
and has re-confirmed this with the recent I-D proposing new processes 
for their submissions.  So, the tv: submission seems completely 
appropriate to make to IETF and is not out of scope.

And, this submission, by IETF's own admission, does not fall into an 
existing WG.  So, by definition, no end-run is occuring here.

And, this submission does not conflict with any existing RFC or draft 
from a WG.

The errors in document format have been acknowledged by the authors, 
and they have agreed to address them.

Given the IETF process for Informational RFC's as it appears to me, 
and the facts above, I would recommend that the authors simply 
resubmit the draft with the documentation changes that were 
suggested, and then if those changes meet the requirements of the 
documentation standards, then the draft continue on its review 
process as provided for in RFC 2026.

If I am mis-reading RFC 2026, then perhaps someone can help me 
understand it better.  Or, if there are undocumented processes that 
have become common practice here, then perhaps someone could 
elaborate on them.  But given the documented review process, I see no 
alternative but for the draft to continue its process within IETF and 

Also, just FYI, as to the published television URI requirements, of 
which I have reviewed in detail and in fact added to myself:

	a) It would be impossible to meet all or even most of these with a 
single URI scheme, and this I-D scheme in fact meets at least one 
requirement; and

	b) The extent to which this scheme meets these requirements is 
interesting, but not relevant.  We are trying to publicly document 
current practice as an Informational RFC, for better or worse 
(including how little of the lengthy requirements, if any at all, are 


At 08:50 PM 8/21/99 PDT, Larry Masinter wrote:
>There's not been any apparent traffic on this list recently. 
>there's quite a flurry of messages  about the 'tv:' URL
>scheme on the mailing list:
>The overlap in membership of this list and that one isn't clear;
>is the proposal to publish the 'tv' URL scheme as an RFC
>the result of the discussions of this group or an end-run
>As was pointed out in one message
>the draft,
>doesn't seem to meet the requirements in 
>There are various other issues as well, but the procedural
>one is probably the lead.
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv


Michael A. Dolan, Representing DIRECTV,  (619)445-9070   
PO Box 1673 Alpine, CA 91903        FAX: (619)445-6122