Re: [Ltru] Tagging of silent films

[r&d afrac <[e-mail]>]

At 04:57 28/09/2005, Randy Presuhn wrote:
>As co-chair: discussion of the advisability of registering a 
>particular tag for a particular purpose does not belong on the 
>[e-mail] mailing list.  It would be much more appropriate on 
>[e-mail].

Dear co-Chair,
this is [e-mail] (or I would not be banned there 
because the moderator would be the IANA Chair).

>As a technical contributor, on the general question of private
>use subtags...

<snip>

>only those who are parties to the agreement will know what the 
>subtag signifies, and that care should be taken to ensure that those 
>who are not parties to that particular private agreement should not 
>have to deal with it, since they may be parties to another agreement 
>assigning a different significance.

I must acknowledge that this WG-ltru takes care of that, disregarding 
consideration and denying IETF service to those whose role (like us 
and other CRCs) is to simultaneously serve the largest number of 
private use spaces, and SSDOs (like AFRAC, but others have been 
quoted like MPEG) which strives to be ISO 11179 compliant to than end.

You try desesperatly to prevent pollution between organisations in 
separating private use spaces. But you organise that pollution when 
private spaces join together, as it is the purpose of the DRS 
(distributed registry system). I know that the "consensus" as Harald 
nicely name it has a solution: everyone is to merge his private space 
in the unique space the "consensus" intends to master to build. End 
of the decentralisation, return to 1967 centralisation.

That CANNOT work.

>No, company-internal means that the organization has taken measures to
>ensure that those not affiliated with the company (parties to the private
>agreement) have no access to the information.

Just state it in the Draft.
I know ... it would then not be accepted by the IESG....
Do not worry, for that very reason it will not be accepted by IAB, or 
by IANA, or by WTO, or by WSIS or by EU or by countries or by users. 
And by then we will have the grassroot approach having taken over 
with another IANA structure. We already had similar tries in other areas ....

All that for one "0-" missing half-line in the text !

>The issue is not the
>number of parties to the private agreement, the issue is ensuring that
>these things don't leak out to those who are not parties to that agreement.

You know what? This is a big security issue ... and it is not quoted 
in the Security Considerations ....

>Another example would be a company and its trading partners, operating
>under some agreement.  These partners would need to carefully keep
>track of their application contexts, since the same sequence of characters
>used as a "private use subtag" might mean different things, since they
>might be party to multiple private agreements.

Oh! Dear ... eventually said. How do you want to impose that protocol 
issue in ... applications (you do not even consider OPES)? Layer 
violation? We are IETF dumb network here, not smart hosts.

The best explanation I saw on this WG why the proposed Draft cannot 
scale. All that NOT to be ISO 11179 compliant!
(I know would the Draft be ISO 11179 compliant the exclusive would be 
gone .... - your problem is that more and more users will be. You can 
oppose me all the time, you can trick all the world some time, you 
cannot win the world all the time).

Too bad you have to make us all waste so much time to learn it...

>What would *not* be an example of an apropriate use of private agreement,
>in my opinion, would be for a mass-market product.  To claim that every
>licensee of a particular product, or every purchaser of a DVD, would thereby
>automatically be a party to a "private agreement" seems quite a stretch.
>When I buy a DVD, how would my software come to know what those
>private use tags are supposed  mean?

As you may know, RFCs are for the Internet which by nature is a 
global system supporting mass-market. What you talk about is 
information pollution. I know you do not want to hear about DNS, but 
the DNS happens to have a 22 years long positive experience in that area.

At AFRAC we start feeling we are on a very big issue if people 
supported by so big ones consider our specific request worth so much 
time to delay it .....

jfc





_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru