- From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
- Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 11:20:47 -0400
- 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 Fältström" <paf@swip.net>, ietf@ietf.org, www-tv@w3.org
Larry, I am sympathetic to the arguments that this document not be published.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
Received on Monday, 23 August 1999 11:25:05 UTC