Subject: Re:

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 23:43:15 -0400

Not to single out anyone in particular, but in response to the
Nth message of the form:

> We support the release of this document as an Informational RFC.

As far as I'm concerned, absent technical justification, expressions
of support (from this or any other organization) aren't much help,
and they indicate a fundamental misunderstanding of IETF.

Furthermore, to an organization like IETF which attempts to make sound
technical decisions based on the opinions of technical experts, 
an expression of support from an organization is at best, uh, difficult 
to evaluate.    It is too easy for an organization to state its 
*public position* rather than the technical opinion of the experts
in its employ.  And we'd far rather the experts speak for themselves, 
because experience suggests that they're more likely to be honest that way.  

At any rate, IETF doesn't make decisions based on organizations' 
public  positions, it makes decisions based on its participants' 
technical opinions.  And IETF's participants are human beings, 
nor organizations.

Now if any of these organizations employ engineers with expertise
in these areas, who can give us good arguments as to why this
proposal isn't a problem, we'd like to hear them.  But we hope that 
they will speak freely and give us their best technical assessment, 
rather than merely repeating the public positions of their companies.

Keith Moore

---

From: "Michael A. Dolan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 07:42:27 -0700

Keith-

I'm certainly no IETF process expert, but I don't know how else to 
interpret paragraph 3 of the attached "Last Call" email from the
IESG Secretary, which prompted this whole email thread.  Perhaps
you can help me understand what "significant affirmative support
for this specification, as demonstrated by responses to this Last
Call request" means if not exactly what we're doing here.

And, this is *not* a public show, as you and others seem to think.
In the grand scheme of things, this is important and I support it
technically.  This is also an official DIRECTV position, for
whatever that's worth (apparently not much in this forum).  You
may be interested to know that many standards organizations only
permit company membership, and there are no personal opinions.
While IETF does *not* work that way, please give some latittude
to those folks that don't know this about IETF and think saying
"company X support it" is actually the correct thing to do.

And, you *are* hearing from the experts in this field. Sorry to
disappoint you.

The draft paper I published to IETF last night is before ATSC for
consideration as part of their standard.  Perhaps you will find
it helpful in providing the context for tv: in the grander scheme
(small pun intended) of things.

	Mike

>To: IETF-Announce: ; 
>Cc: [email-masked] 
>From: The IESG <[email-masked]> 
>SUBJECT: Last Call: Uniform Resource Identifiers for Television 
> Broadcasts to Informational 
>Reply-to: [email-masked] 
>Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 08:07:03 -0400 
>Sender: [email-masked] 
> 
> 
>The IESG has received a request to consider Uniform Resource 
>Identifiers for Television Broadcasts <draft-zigmond-tv-url-02.txt> 
as 
>an Informational RFC. This has been reviewed in the IETF but is not 
>the product of an IETF Working Group. 
> 
>This Last Call has been requested by the Applications Area to 
determine 
>whether there is community support for publishing this specification 

>for a tv: URL. The AD requesting this Last Call believes that 
because 
>the "tv" URL prefix has high recognition value, it is important that 

it 
>be carefully defined in a way which is not only consistent with URI 
>syntax, but which also allows for maximum flexibility of use by the 
>wide variety of applications which will wish to refer to television 
>programming. 
> 
>Absent significant affirmative support for this specification, as 
>demonstrated by responses to this Last Call request, the AD who 
>requested this Last Call will recommend that the document not be 
>published due to lack of public support. 
> 
> 
>The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and 
solicits 
>final comments on this action. Please send any comments to the 
>[email-masked] or [email-masked] mailing lists by September 13, 1999. 
> 
>Please CC responses to this Last Call to [email-masked] 
>so that they can be easily collected for perusal by the IESG. 
> 
>Files can be obtained via 
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-zigmond-tv-url-02.txt 

------------------------------------------------------
Michael A. Dolan, Representing DIRECTV,  (619)445-9070   
PO Box 1673 Alpine, CA 91903        FAX: (619)445-6122

---

From: "Michael A. Dolan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 07:42:27 -0700

Keith-

	Mike

as 
determine 

because 

it 
solicits

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 10:51:08 -0400

> Call request" means if not exactly what we're doing here.

sorry that the note wasn't clearer; I'll know better next time.
"significant affirmative support" was indeed a request for
statements of support, but as I said, statements from companies
are difficult to evaluate. another problem is, we've since identified 
so many problems with this specification that bare statements
of support, without any technical justification, pale in comparison.

> technically.  

and if memory serves, you've actually been making technical arguments.
I wasn't objecting to those contributions.

> And, you *are* hearing from the experts in this field. Sorry to

I don't care who I'm hearing from, if they can't back up their
opinions with technical justification, they're not worth much.
 
> (small pun intended) of things.

would you provide a reference?  say an Internet-Draft name?
(e.g. draft-xxx-yyy-NN.txt)

Keith

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 10:51:08 -0400

Keith

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 17:26:30 +0100 (BST)

> In the grand scheme of things, this is important and I support it

Technically speaking, the BPF in the draft is broken.
You support that?

L.

> And, you *are* hearing from the experts in this field. Sorry to

<[email-masked]>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 17:26:30 +0100 (BST)

L.