Re: [Ltru] Tagging of silent films

["Randy Presuhn" <[e-mail]>]

Hi -

> From: "r&d afrac" <[e-mail]>
> To: "Randy Presuhn" <[e-mail]>; "LTRU Working Group" <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 7:20 AM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Tagging of silent films
>
> 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).

Wrong.   [e-mail] is the current implementation of
[e-mail].  This is fairly common and long-standing
practice for IETF-related mailing lists. See discussion of issue
#888 at https://rt.psg.com/ (user and password "ietf").

> >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.

This is a re-hash of the discussion of issue #1061.
The working group already reached a consensus.
Though, as a technical contributor, I don't like private
use tags, the WG reached a consensus, and, in the absence
of new information, there is no point in re-enacting the discussion.

> 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 !

This is a re-hash of issue #1092.  The WG consensus was clearly to
reject your proposal.  Get over it.

> >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 ....

I'll leave that to the security ADs.

> >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).

I'm not able to make any sense of these two paragraphs.

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

It's your choice to waste time here.

> >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 .....

I *hope* you meant something else.  Your sentence implies that if
you make a mistake, you will insist on perpetuating that mistake if
others do not agree to make the same error.

> jfc




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