Re: [Uri-review] dvb: URI scheme

Alexander Adolf <> Wed, 31 October 2012 16:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A770021F8567 for <>; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 09:35:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.449
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5THWgvbXv48f for <>; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 09:35:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 376AC21F8509 for <>; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 09:35:54 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Received: from [] ( []) by (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-24.01( 64bit (built Jan 3 2012)) with ESMTPSA id <> for; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 16:35:54 +0000 (GMT)
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.7.7855, 1.0.431, 0.0.0000 definitions=2012-10-31_03:2012-10-31, 2012-10-31, 1970-01-01 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=6.0.2-1203120001 definitions=main-1210310160
From: Alexander Adolf <>
In-reply-to: <>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 17:35:49 +0100
Message-id: <>
References: <> <> <>
To: Graham Klyne <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Cc: Ted Hardie <>, "" <>, Mo McRoberts <>
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] dvb: URI scheme
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proposed URI Schemes <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 16:35:55 -0000

Dear Graham, uri-reviewers,

On 2012-10-29, at 21:09 , Graham Klyne <> wrote:

> [...]
> TL;DR: Yes, but this seems like a reasonable step forward from our earlier discussions, and IMO more detailed review is appropriate at this juncture.
> [...]

Thanks a lot for picking this up. Looking forward to your comments.

> I haven't yet had a look at the latest draft, but in the circumstances it seems to me to be a reasonable step forward.  If I recall correctly, I was previously a bit concerned about permanent registration of a scheme for which there was no freely available specification, so at the time we settled for provisional.  Or something like that.

The ETSI specification in question (as are all ETSI specifications) has always been, and will remain to be freely available (including free of charge) to everyone. Sometimes there are concerns about IPR; esp. when W3C is involved. In order to remove the need for every implementor or user of the draft to ask ETSI about the IPR status (to which their answer is "no IPR here"), we (DVB) have agreed to putting the whole syntax and grammar in the ID, effectively re-publishing it under the IETF Trust's terms. That way, the IPR situation is implicitly clarified for every reader of the document.

> Since then I've got a better sense of the scope of use of this scheme, and Mo has made a fair case for "promotion" to permanent status, *provided* there are no problems raised by community review (and in the face of problems, permanent registration with caveats might yet be an appropriate course).
> [...]

Of course Mo and I will be happy to explain and answer to all questions raised; and we are also looking forward to improving the draft based on comments and suggestions.

As the DVB Project, we would highly welcome if a permanent status of the registration could be achieved, since it apparently is part of our brand.

Thanks a lot and cheers,