IMPORTANT: Submission of specification v1.1 for ratification

[Ben Poor]

Dear All,

You may recall that we have gone through a process of producing 2 draft proposals for the v1.1 RadioEPG specification, in May and at the start of this month.

At this time, I have received no sustained objections on the changed proposed, and I will therefore be submitting this draft to the RadioDNS Steering Board on 8th July 2013 for ratification as the official v1.1 RadioEPG specification document.

Getting the document ratified is an important step as it incorporates the joint work that RadioEPG has been doing with IMDA, and could form the basis of Radio Service and Programme information over an increasingly wider range of activities.

Please let me know whether you have any objections or clarifications to any part of the draft specification.

The submitted version will only contain minor spelling or grammatical corrections, and will be relablled without any draft designations, but NO functional changes will be made. This version will be posted to the group prior to submission.

Many thanks for all your efforts,

Ben

[Ben Poor]

Dear All,

On further reflection, and after some useful feedback, it makes sense to postpone submission of v1.1 of the RadioEPG to the RadioDNS Steering Board for ratification until the next SB meeting in October.

This will allow us more time to test the implementation details of how a device/client will handle a range of RadioEPG services, and some of the finer details on Service Following. As mentioned previously, I hope this will form the basis of a simple guidance document that will be published to the group.

As always, please feel free to post and questions/comments either to the group or directly to me. It will be very useful to get more scrutiny on the specification from a wider range of people.

Many thanks

Ben

[Ben Poor]

Dear All,

Just a gentle reminder that we are still aiming for ratification of this specification at the Steering Board meeting, next week.

I shall be making minor corrections and clarifications to the specification up to that point, but please do take a fresh look at get back to me or the group with any larger issues or concerns that you have.

Many thanks,

Ben