Re: I-D ACTION:draft-zigmond-tv-url-03.txt

From: Craig A. Finseth (
Date: Tue, Jan 11 2000

  • Next message: Craig A. Finseth: "Re: I-D ACTION:draft-zigmond-tv-url-03.txt"

    Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 09:38:33 -0600 (CST)
    Message-Id: <>
    From: "Craig A. Finseth" <>
    Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-zigmond-tv-url-03.txt
       Some fundamental limitations identified as early as last summer have still
       not been fixed, this draft should not have been published until these issues
       have been resolved.
       1) This proposal only supports the broadcast model, it provides no support
       for the increasingly important on-demand model; a workable TV URI scheme
       requires support for BOTH content and broadcast addressing.
    This functionality is addressed by the associated lid: URI scheme and
    (should be (:-)) described in the assciated "guide to using this stuff" RFC.
       The removal of channel numbers is unjustified, it is not obsolete.  Most DTV
       consumers select by channel number either directly or channel  +/-, many do
       not even use menus, very few will ever use a URI.  Devices using this scheme
       are aimed at end consumers where usability is perhaps the more important
    Channel numbers are not unique identifiers: what is on channel 4 here
    is not the same as what is on channel 4 in New York.
       >The channel numbers generally correspond to tuning frequencies in the
       various national broadcast frequency standards; for example, "tv:4" in the
       United states would be found at 66 MHz.*
       This is supposed to be an international standard, not a US standard.  If
       channel numbering in the US is fixed to a specific radio frequency, (which I
       find difficult to believe) channel numbering should be included on a
       "should" or "may" basis.  Current limitations should not be reason to
       cripple this standard.  We should be aim for an ideal.
    For NTSC (analog) TV in the US, channel number to frequency mappings
    are fixed.
    However, the reason for omitting the usage was not the mapping, but
    the fact that channel number are not unique identifiers.