Re: Next steps on draft-zigmond-tv-url-02

At 10:20 27.08.99 -0700, Dan Zigmond wrote:
>So now that we've officially moved discussion of the recently submitted
>"tv:" draft to this list...all discussion seems to have stopped.  I thought
>I'd send out a message on where I think we are and how we might move
>forward.

apologies for not responding earlier. I'm stil around!

One question: You (or others) mentioned a few times that an URI scheme was 
"the only one that met your requirements".
Would it be possible to have those requirements posted somewhere - here, as 
an I-D, or on a Webpage?


>Good news: There seems to be some emerging consensus that a revision of the
>"tv:" spec should be published as an RFC.

An alternative is to publish Craig Finseth's "btv:" and publish the TV: 
scheme as is, but with a label saying "this has been superseded by btv:, DO 
NOT USE".

>Bad news: At the very least, the scheme needs to be revised for global
>uniqueness.
>
>The proposals on the table that seem the most workable to me are the ones
>using DNS.  I don't think we want to try to create a new registry system for
>television networks, especially if we hope to finish soon.  So the revised
>scheme would look like:
>
>         tv:             (current channel)

The concept of "currency" may need some explanation - "the channel carrying 
the signal in which the URL is embedded" is what we're looking for, I think.

>         tv:kqed                 (ITU standard international callsign)

I'd like to lose this too; it's an americanism, and confuses the issues, I 
think. Is there a station with callsign FIRM?

>         tv:abc.com      (DNS domain name: American Broadcasting Company)
>         tv:abc.net.au   (DNS domain name: Australian Broadcast Corporation)
>
>We could make a note in the draft of the legacy usage of "tv:abc", but
>explain that it should not be used going forward because of collision with
>the callsign namespace and the problem of the same identifiers being used by
>different broadcasters in different geographical regions.

Definitely.

>We would also remove from the draft the speculation on future "tv:" URI
>schemes, and remove the IPR statements (which could be filed by individual
>companies with the IETF separately).
>
>How does this sound?

It sounds good to me!

                           Harald

--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, Maxware, Norway
Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no

Received on Tuesday, 31 August 1999 03:08:19 UTC