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

Thanks for taking the time to review this draft.  It's nice to be generating
some discussion again.

I wanted to clarify a few things:

> this draft should not have been published until these issues
> have been resolved.

I guess it's difficult to please everybody.  I had hesitated to submit the
current document as an Internet-Draft until I had more input, but I was
encouraged on this list (and in private emails) to go ahead precisely to
encourage more input.  However, I do think it's important to note that
Internet-Drafts are "published" only in a very limited sense: they expire
after six months and imply no endorsement whatsoever by the IETF.

> The removal of channel numbers is unjustified, it is not obsolete.

Perhaps the draft is unclear on this point, but it's not the "channel
numbers" per se that are obsolete.  Rather, numerous people requested that
we remove channel numbers from the scheme because they were not uniform
internationally (or even nationally, in some places).  As Craig has said,
channel 3 in one place is almost certainly different than channel 3 some
place else; in fact, even in one geography, the numbers are not consistent
between terrestrial broadcast, satellite, and cable, or between different
providers of cable and satellite services.  We mention them in the draft
because they are used occasionally in "tv:" URIs today, but the consensus
appears to be that this should not continue.  (Harald has probably been the
most eloquent in making the case against them, so perhaps he can chime in.)

> This is supposed to be an international standard, not a US standard.

We certainly agree on this point, but I'm not sure if it speaks for or
against including channel numbers.  In general, we've tried to exclude
broadcast identifiers that can't be made world unique precisely because a
page authored here in America may be rendered in the UK.  Channel numbers
certainly fail on this count.

	Dan


--------------------------------------------------- 
Dan Zigmond 
Senior Manager, Interactive Television Technologies 
WebTV Networks, Inc. 
djz@corp.webtv.net 
--------------------------------------------------- 


-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Spamer [mailto:martin_spamer@kingston-comms.co.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2000 4:00 AM
To: WWW TV List
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.

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
issue.

>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.

Martin Spamer
Senior Software Engineer
Kingston Vision LTD
Phone +44 (0) 1482 602 670
Fax +44 (0) 01482 602 899
E-Mail martin_spamer@kingston-comms.co.uk
<mailto:martin_spamer@kingston-comms.co.uk> 
http://www.kingston-vision.co.uk/ <http://www.kingston-vision.co.uk/> 


	-----Original Message-----
	From:	Dan Zigmond [SMTP:djz@corp.webtv.net]
	Sent:	Monday, January 10, 2000 9:19 PM
	To:	WWW TV List
	Subject:	FW: I-D ACTION:draft-zigmond-tv-url-03.txt

	The most recent draft of the "tv:" URI specification is now
available on the
	IETF Web site.  The details are below.  I believe this incorporates
all of
	the input I have received to date.


	...

Received on Tuesday, 11 January 2000 14:34:21 UTC