Subject: RE: [Ltru] Re: Tagging of silent films (was: Re: el truth?)

From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 17:06:57 -0700

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of r&d afrac

> >The only document to which this working group can currently add anything
> >is the i-d on matching...

> Cannot it be the result of a DISCUSS?
> I may be wrong, but from the debate it seems we have a lack of
> clarity concerning the "private use" possibilities between mentors of
> this WG‎ (I agree with the "qsi" comment given by Harald).‎

IMO, the pros and cons of using private use code or metadata elements are reasonably understood generally but must be considered specifically in the context of a given application context. All we are doing is providing tags and a spec for certain ways to compare tags; we are not telling people tags must be used in some derivate protocol or application. Section 4.5 does give general guidance about the limitations of private-use tags, including the caveats that Harald mentioned:

<quote>
Private use subtags have no meaning outside the private agreement between the parties that intend to use or exchange language tags that employ them. The same subtags MAY be used with a different meaning under a separate private agreement. They SHOULD NOT be used where alternatives exist and SHOULD NOT be used in content or protocols intended for general use.
</quote>

That is the kind of thing that's appropriate to put in *that* document. If the MPAA or MPEG groups need to discuss specific implications of using "qsi" in their protocols and advice implementers of the potential concerns of exposing that to other systems, that's *their* problem, not ours.

> Dont you think it is better to accept a simple half additional line
> and permit to address all these tricky cases one shot (in just
> permitting to indicate the private space of exchange where the added
> information applies) rather than in re-chartering, wasting months,
> etc. to universally address a limited number of local cases. Will
> this will never end? Or is there a major reason I do not understand
> demanding it.

That's what we're all wondering: will this ever end? There's not another half line of text needed in RFC3066bis to discuss this. What's really needed is already there. We've all had opportunity to review it, comment on it and suggest changes to it, and the time for that has passed. This process must and will end; the rest of us are pushing for closure. But you seem to want to drag it out longer for the sake of a half line that will supposedly address in one shot all kinds of tricky problems that supposed are not yet addressed -- except AFAICT they are addressed.

Peter Constable

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

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 06:30:24 +0200

At 02:06 28/09/2005, Peter Constable wrote:
> > this WGý (I agree with the "qsi" comment given by Harald).ý
>
>IMO, the pros and cons of using private use code or metadata 
>elements are reasonably understood generally but must be considered 
>specifically in the context of a given application context. All we 
>are doing is providing tags and a spec for certain ways to compare 
>tags; we are not telling people tags must be used in some derivate 
>protocol or application. Section 4.5 does give general guidance 
>about the limitations of private-use tags, including the caveats 
>that Harald mentioned:
>
><quote>
>Private use subtags have no meaning outside the private agreement 
>between the parties that intend to use or exchange language tags 
>that employ them. The same subtags MAY be used with a different 
>meaning under a separate private agreement. They SHOULD NOT be used 
>where alternatives exist and SHOULD NOT be used in content or 
>protocols intended for general use.
></quote>
>
>That is the kind of thing that's appropriate to put in *that* 
>document. If the MPAA or MPEG groups need to discuss specific 
>implications of using "qsi" in their protocols and advice 
>implementers of the potential concerns of exposing that to other 
>systems, that's *their* problem, not ours.

Dear Peter,
This response is the response to the question below.

- who is the "ours" you quote? This is IETF not Unicode: it is not 
meant to deliberately ignore MPAA, MPEG, etc. like requests, nore the 
generic ISO 11179 compliant needs, all them represented by AFRAC 
whose job is to interface them all. Our (as IETF) is to support 
"*their*" problem (which incidently is mine).

- the failure of the document is that if it partly permits to support 
private agreements such as MPAA or MPEG or AFRAC, but it makes that 
capacity useless in providing no way to document which private 
agreement is being used. This leads to the conflicts described by 
Harald and denies the need of the Common Reference Centers like AFRAC 
to support them all. This is an organised DoS. And you just 
documented it. Thank you.

>That's what we're all wondering: will this ever end?

Frankly? I do not know. Some with serious annoyance capacity for your 
employer talk of three to five years and of the justice obligation to 
support "0-". This is beyond me anyway. Your decision: they wanted to 
kill the project, but they are slow. We shown them we could manage in 
"0-" with ":" and "." and undetermined length.

>There's not another half line of text needed in RFC3066bis to 
>discuss this. What's really needed is already there.

This is a sales pitch for the unique solution you want to impose (to 
favor the Charter quoted Unicode CLDR proposition?)
Impeaching private solutions and competition? No well accepted. After 
all, this is your problem to pay lawyers.

>  We've all had opportunity to review it, comment on it and suggest 
> changes to it, and the time for that has passed.

Not this with me, please. People are reading!

>  This process must and will end; the rest of us are pushing for closure

The IETF mechanic calls for a few months more. Should some at the 
IESG do not realise how much your proposition is detrimental to their 
own corporation (as an example of the way it is detrimental to 
everyone) there will be appeals - I may or not be involved (I start 
being bored and my work is building your competition). Then there 
will be political and legal actions.

You really misjudged my opposition. I was here only to help with QA 
for consumer protection. I proposed you to cooperate several times. 
Now I can only wish you personal good luck if the RFC is eventually 
approved by the IAB.

>But you seem to want to drag it out longer for the sake of a half 
>line that will supposedly address in one shot all kinds of tricky 
>problems that supposed are not yet addressed -- except AFAICT they 
>are addressed.

Repeating this does not make you any good, nor to your employer: 
people are reading.

When all this is finished ten years from now, I will have you for 
lunch. I will explain you what you did wrong for your employer.
jfc