Requirements for Internet Media Guides (IMGs)
RFC 4473

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.

(Jon Peterson) Yes

(Harald Alvestrand) No Objection

Comment (2005-01-20 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
Reviewed by Spencer Dawkins, Gen-ART

He has a number of comments (copied to document log), but none that I see as warranting blocking the document for that reason alone.

(Margaret Cullen) No Objection

(Ted Hardie) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2005-01-18)
No email
send info
I'm concerned that the potential roles of intermediaries are under-specified here.
In the introduction, the document says:

   Finally, with many potential senders and receivers, different types
   of networks, and presumably numerous service providers, IMG metadata
   may need to be combined, split, filtered, augmented, modified, etc.,
   on their way from the sender(s) to the receiver(s) to provide the
   ultimate user with a suitable selection of multimedia services
   according to her preferences, subscriptions, location, context (e.g.
   devices, access networks), etc.

The Security Considerations section does have some mention of 
the role of intermediaries, e.g.

   REQ AUT-5: It MUST be possible to separate or combine individually
   authenticated pieces of IMG metadata (e.g. in an IMG transceiver)

but the general mechanisms by which the receiver, sender, and intermediaries
interact does not seem to have generated sufficient requirements to ensure
that later protocol work will succeed.

I've had a short side discussion with Jon on this, and I agree that this could
be specified in a separate document, if that's the way the WG wants to tackle

(Scott Hollenbeck) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(David Kessens) No Objection

(Allison Mankin) No Objection