RE: Where are we?

From: Carr, Wayne (wayne.carr@intel.com)
Date: Fri, Oct 08 1999


Message-ID: <438BA6CBABC5D111AC4100A0C96B75B30275CE02@fmsmsx41.fm.intel.com>
From: "Carr, Wayne" <wayne.carr@intel.com>
To: "'Dan Zigmond'" <djz@corp.webtv.net>, www-tv@w3c.org
Cc: mav@liberate.com
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 08:42:11 -0700 
Subject: RE: Where are we?

Your newest proposal looks like it meets the objections to the previous
versions.  It certainly reflects what will be widespread common practice and
would be very helpful to have as an informational RFC.   A draft to send
back to the IETF next week sounds like a good plan.  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Zigmond [mailto:djz@corp.webtv.net]
> Sent: Thursday, October 07, 1999 5:55 PM
> To: www-tv@w3c.org
> Cc: mav@liberate.com
> Subject: Where are we?
> 
> 
> Discussions seem to have stalled again, so I thought maybe I 
> would make an
> attempt to summarize where I think we might be now in terms 
> of a proposal to
> take back to the IESG/IETF.
> 
> Several people expressed discomfort with the use of broadcast 
> call signs of
> the form KQED.  Although these are world unique and 
> standardized by the ITU
> (I think), they appear to be very uncommon outside the United 
> States.  So I
> would like to propose that we further limit the "tv:" URI to 
> two forms:
> 
> 	tv:			meaning "current channel"
> 	tv:<network>	where <network> is a DNS name
> 
> So some valid "tv:" URIs would be:
> 
> 	tv:			[of course]
> 	tv:abc.com		American Broadcasting Company
> 	tv:abc.net.au	Australian Broadcast Corporation
> 	tv:kron.com		KRON in San Francisco
> 	tv:channel4.com	Channel 4 in the UK
> 	tv:west.hbo.com	HBO West
> 	tv:one.bbc.co.uk	BBC1
> 
> As I think we've discussed, the rule is that if you own the 
> domain, you can
> register names using that domain.  So HBO can register 
> "west.hbo.com" as
> their official name for their West Coast feed, and BBC can register
> "one.bbc.co.uk" or "1.bbc.co.uk" or whatever they want for BBC1.  
> 
> I think this is a reasonably final proposal.  It basically 
> collapses all the
> other forms into the DNS namespace, and moves any dispute 
> over names to
> disputes over DNS.  (Of course, DNS disputes aren't easy to 
> resolve, but at
> least if we ever get a good mechanism there it will 
> automatically be applied
> to "tv:" URIs too.)  
> 
> I'm ready to do another revision to the Internet-Draft based on this
> approach, but I thought I'd make another check for comments 
> first.  Perhaps
> we can try to have a new draft next week and get it to the IESG.
> 
> 	Dan
> 	
> 
> --------------------------------------------------- 
> Dan Zigmond 
> Senior Manager, Broadcast Applications 
> WebTV Networks, Inc. 
> djz@corp.webtv.net 
> --------------------------------------------------- 
>