Re: Criteria for new URL schemes; W3C/IETF cooperation

From: Keith Moore (moore@cs.utk.edu)
Date: Mon, Aug 23 1999


Message-Id: <199908231520.LAA17614@astro.cs.utk.edu>
From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
To: "Larry Masinter" <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
cc: "Michael A. Dolan" <miked@tbt.com>, "Dan Zigmond" <djz@corp.webtv.net>, "Mark Vickers" <mav@liberate.com>, "Philipp Hoschka" <hoschka@w3.org>, "Keith Moore" <moore+iesg@cs.utk.edu>, "Patrik Fältströ" <paf@swip.net>, ietf@ietf.org, www-tv@w3.org
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 11:20:47 -0400
Subject: Re: Criteria for new URL schemes; W3C/IETF cooperation 

Larry,

I am sympathetic to the arguments that this document not be published.
I am however still hopeful that we can find a better way to move 
forward than to reject it entirely.

However, it would set a bad precedent were IETF (or W3C, or any other 
PSO member) to categorically refuse to publish a document when another 
PSO member had work activity in the same area.  While we all have 
limited resources and it is usually desirable to avoid duplication of
effort, there also needs to be some room for standards-setting 
organizations to compete

We recognize that both W3C and IETF have interests in tv: URLs,
and we want to do the right thing.  The best outcome would be to
reach consensus between all parties, including IETF participants,
W3C, and proponents of the current tv: URL document.  If we cannot
acheive this then (in this case anyway) it is up to IESG and 
the RFC Editor to decide whether and how to publish this document.
As is usual, a decision to publish will be announced on the IETF
mailing list well before actual publication.  If another PSO member 
objects to that decision, then - after the decision is made and
before the document is published - seems like the time to formally 
request that it be taken to the PSO.  

Of course, we hope it doesn't come to that, and we will try to come 
up with a decision that satisfies all parties.

Keith