Re: draft-zigmond-tv-url-02 discussion on ietf@ietf.org

From: Michael A. Dolan (miked@tbt.com)
Date: Mon, Aug 23 1999


Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990823153021.00a125a0@cts.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 15:30:21 -0700
To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <Harald@Alvestrand.no>
From: "Michael A. Dolan" <miked@tbt.com>
Cc: www-tv@w3.org (WWW TV List)
Subject: Re: draft-zigmond-tv-url-02 discussion on ietf@ietf.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mr. Alvestrand-

I'm not sure what posting IETF process discussion to the www-tv list 
and bcc'ing others is all about, but all I can say is that we 
disagree on the IETF review process for Informational URI RFC's.

As you know, more extensive discussions on the topic can be found on 
the IETF list in a recent thread mostly between Larry M and myself.  
You and others on the www-tv list that may be interested in IETF 
process should form their opinions based on the careful review of the 
contents of that thread.

I don't "claim any rights" (?)  And, this is not a matter of a lack 
of cooperation as you imply; this is a matter of applying correct 
IETF review process to the target submission.  Technical problem 
resolution and excellence has its place.  Just not on *everything*, 
and not on Informational RFC's trying to capture current practice.  
The Informational draft author's responsibility  is to document 
technical problems and limitations that are pointed out, which I 
assume they will do.  They have no responsibility to correct it - 
they can't it's by definition current practice.

If, after reviewing the process thread on IETF, you still wish to 
make a point about the IETF review process, I'd be happy to discuss 
it with you offline, or perhaps (although not my recommendation) on 
ietf or another public list.

And, if you are interested in more technical information about the 
bigger picture of URI's in television, I suggest you read the 
reference I posted to the ietf list:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg05231.html

I would be delighted to discuss the technical merits of the URI 
Framework, the tv:// proposal, and the btv:// proposals (but not tv:) 
in detail with you on this list if you wish.  In fact, I would 
greatly welcome your technical review and input.  At some point these 
will be submitted to IETF for comment, technical review, etc. more 
along the lines of everyone's expectations for the process for tv:.  
So far, these are not "current practice" and thus can be changed for 
the better.

Regards,
	Mike

At 10:56 PM 8/23/99 +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>At 09:15 23.08.99 -0700, Michael A. Dolan wrote:
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>Hash: SHA1
>>
>>At 08:11 AM 8/23/99 +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>> >
>> >I'll ask you for only about the 3rd time:
>> >
>> >   Do you have a mailing list where you are happy to discuss the
>>technical
>> >   properties of this URI scheme, and how the draft can be 
modified
>>so that
>> >   all of us can be less than terribly unhappy with it?
>>
>>I'm sure I've replied as many times, but for those on www-tv that
>>have perhaps not heard it as many times:
>>
>>     The technical merits of this Informational draft are not
>>relevant,
>>     and thus do not need to be discussed anywhere, in or out of 
IETF.
>>     This is an Informational track submission and requires no such
>>     review per RFC 2026.
>>
>>The editorial comments *are* relevant, belong on ietf (and probably
>>not on www-tv), and are being addressed, hopefully to (almost)
>>everyone's satisfaction.
>
>OK, I hear you.
>You claim to have a right to publication of an Informational RFC,
>even though significant technical objections to its content have 
been
>raised within the IETF community.
>
>You also claim that the technical objections are irrelevant to the 
>publication of this document.
>I disagree; I think they are significant and need to be addressed, 
and that 
>the community is better served by delaying RFC publication until 
they have 
>been addressed.
>
>There is no "right to publish" for RFCs.
>The decision to publish rests, in the case of Informational RFCs, 
with the 
>RFC Editor; I've BCCed this message to the RFC Editor to inform them 
of my 
>opinion.
>
>I wish we had a better basis for cooperation.
>
>                           Harald A
>
>
>--
>Harald Tveit Alvestrand, Maxware, Norway
>Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no
>
>
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv

iQA/AwUBN8HLfCl9dIG/haQGEQKx9QCaArg+IXAwre7X2uSOAUKoDUlMXbsAn2fx
aHjyOmDAtYUHr1d+3KRs4++P
=nytz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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