Re: I-D submission "Requirements on TV Broadcast URIs"

From: Craig A. Finseth (
Date: Wed, Nov 18 1998

Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 11:45:33 -0600 (CST)
Message-Id: <>
From: "Craig A. Finseth" <>
Subject: Re: I-D submission "Requirements on TV Broadcast URIs"

   > Well, in the sense that the other organizations drop their existing
   > schemes to adopt one that meets the (other) requirements, we gain
   > compatability.

   OK, so I propose you immediately drop your ATSC scheme.
   It isn't used anyway.

   (How does that feel? I say this to make clear what you 
   are saying: "others should adapt, we're right", at least
   that's the way I understand you.)

Well, of course we're right (many (:-)s).  Seriously, the
"compatability" requirement is one that we (or anyone) can not meet on
its face (I won't repeat the argument).

That said, Gomer and I (and probably many others, but not the ones
writing up the proposed schemes) have come to the realization that
URIs must define content at a higher level than the transport -- in
fact, must not refer to the transport at all -- or the scheme won't
work in practice (at least, practice in the US where all the numeric
identifiers associated with transport are routinely rearranged along
the path).

   >    The purpose of this requirement is to acknowledge that there are
   >    other bodies also defining URI schemes. Somehow, we need to align.
   >    Ignoring is not the way achieving that.
   > Then it should be stated this way.  Something like:
   >         Any actual scheme must be coordinated with ATSC, DVB, DAVIC, etc.
   >         and must be usable by those systems (assuming an implementation,
   >         of course).

   Thanks. I'll adapt our draft to that. How about:

   "Any actual scheme must be coordinated with standardisation bodies 
   such as ATSC, DVB, DAVIC, and must be reasonably acceptable to 
   those bodies."

Fine with me!  Thanks!