Subject: RE: draft-zigmond-tv-url-02

From: Graham Klyne <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 07:18:57 +0100

At 09:57 17/08/99 -0700, Dan Zigmond wrote:

[...]
>Having worked in this area for several years now, I think I can say with
>some confidence that it will take time to complete a document worthy of the
>standards track.  The problems (most of which I hope are at least mentioned
>in the draft) are difficult.  In the meantime, I see no harm in documenting
>existing practice, perhaps with the standard sort of IESG "disclaimer"
[...]

In view another current thread on the IETF list about I-D repositories,
this would seem to be the appropriate response (rather than saying "this is
broken, it must not be published").  Is it not better to publish, along
with a description of its flaws?

#g

------------
Graham Klyne
([email-masked])

---

From: "John W. Noerenberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 10:03:07 -0700

>with a description of its flaws?

This is attractive, I admit.  But I concur with Keith's remarks about 
the tacit approval publication confers.  Conversations with people 
who possess only a cursory understanding of IETF procedures 
demonstrate to me that assignment of an RFC number is often 
misconstrued as perfection of a standard.

We all know this is absurd, but I'm wary of the public's perception 
to the contrary.  Speaking only as a lowly participant of the IETF 
(<grin>), I think Dan's desire to publish current practice is a 
desirable first step towards a scalable, interoperable scheme (he's 
right the problem is hard.  The struggle to find a workable, general 
URI scheme over the years is ample confirmation).  But we must be 
careful that what is published is correctly perceived as an 
assessment of the practice, not a specific proposal on how to provide 
the service.

My own skittishness in this regard is no fault of Dan's or the TV 
distributors who are working on the scheme.  The IETF has had 
previous experience with others who have attempted to use 
Informational RFCs as a vehicle to claim IETF endorsement of their 
practice, taking advantage of the public's lack of education on what 
an RFC number means.  That is always in the back of my mind when I 
read individual submissions for informational drafts.

What I read in the -02 draft seems intended to avoid that specific 
problem.  I do wish the draft stated more emphatically that current 
practice must be adapted in order to produce a scheme applicable 
across the Internet.
john noerenberg
[email-masked]
  --------------------------------------------------------------------
   Setting out on the voyage to Ithaca
   you must pray that the way be long,
   full of adventures and experiences.
   -- C.P. Cavavy, "Ithaca", 1911
   --------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "John W. Noerenberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 10:03:07 -0700

---

From: Glen Zorn <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 12:01:30 -0700 (PDT)

> misconstrued as perfection of a standard.

Presumably these same people possess "only a cursory understanding" of the
English language, since they apparently cannot understand the following
sentences (appearing verbatim in the first paragraph of _every_
Informational RFC): "This memo provides information for the Internet
community.  It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind." 

> But we must be 

Editorializing is unnecessary, as is "assessment of the practice".  Come
on, people!  This is an _Informational_ submission.  If the _information_
provided is incorrect or unclear, then correct it.  Otherwise, publish the
damn thing and quit wasting space in my Inbox.

> read individual submissions for informational drafts.

The obvious answer to this problem is to educate the public, rather than
to suppress information on how things are done.

> -
> This message was passed through [email-masked], which
> is a sublist of [email-masked]. Not all messages are passed.
> Decisions on what to pass are made solely by Harald Alvestrand.
>

---

From: Glen Zorn <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 12:01:30 -0700 (PDT)