Re: ip-dvb BoF ?

[Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>]

Thanks, 

I'll respond in two parts:
(i) See in-line comments
(ii) I'll see how much I can organise the "list" to find out 
	about their readiness to do work now.


Thomas Narten wrote:
> 
> Gorry,
> 
> > > Discussions amongst a group of people (originally from PILC, but now
> > > broadening to people from DVB and ETSI discussion lists) have been looking
> > > at evolution of a new standard for transmission of IP datagrams over
> > > Digital Video Broadcast (DVB) networks.  Now is an important time, since
> > > DVB is used as the bearer network for many satellite Internet services,
> > > and there is increasing interests in also providing IP services as a
> > > core part of many non-satellite DVB services.  The current standard
> > > mechanism for doing this is to use "MPE", which owes much to the world
> > > of MPEG, and seems rather suboptimal for IP, and doesn't provide
> > > all the features to build a full IP service.
> > >
> > > There is a growing awareness of the need to develop a new standard
> > > - and the is to do a much better job. One good way to do this would
> > > be within the IETF where there is much experience of building
> > > ip-over-foo standards.  I was (could still be?) hoping to ask for the
> > > possibility of organising a BoF at the next IETF to debate this.
> 
> Time is very rapidly running out...

Yes!

> > > With this in mind, we formed a mailing list (ip-dvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk)
> > > and have approached the DVB standards body to ask whether
> > > they would collaborate / "bless" such an activity. At this time, I am
> > > still awaiting their comments....
> 
> My general approach to handling BOFs is that I'd like:
> 
> 1) assuming a WG is what is desired, a rough idea of what the  charter
>    of the WG would be. I.e., what would the WG do?
> 
>    http://www.erg.abdn.ac.uk/users/gorry/ip-dvb/charter.html would
>    appear to be the first cut.
> 

I'll take this to the list.

> 2) an Internet Draft outlining what needs to be done (what are the
>    technical issues). This may provide background information too.
> 
> 3) establishment of a mailing list used to discuss the draft and
>    demonstrate that there is interest in the IETF taking on some
>    work. The purpose of the list would be to see where there is
>    agreement and where there is not. The BOF (if it were held) would
>    try to focus on the issues where there wasn't agreement. Finally,
>    it would be used to gauge interest in holding a BOF in the first
>    place.
> 
>    How many folks are on this list? 

There are 55 currently.

>    How widely advertised has it been?

Within DVB Commercial and Technical modules.
Within ETSI groups related to DVB
Within IETF UDLR WG
List of contacts who have presented on this subject at Industry events.

>    Should it existance be advertised elsewhere?

Do you have suggestions?
- Do you think we should send something to the general IETF list?

> All this has to happen  before November 19 (in two weeks). That is the
> dealine for the ADs to approve a request.
> 

This is about the time for the meeting of the DVB technical module, with
whom we hope to establish a good relationship, and advice on IP-related 
DVB issues.

> Also, do you know if enough of the key  players will be able to travel
> to Utah in December?

Good question, I don't know yet. 

> Thomas