Thanks Alain,I think you're hinting that the ULE draft needs a "rev", and I'd agree with this!
Your inputs here will be **very** helpful (together with others from the list), and I will set aside some time at the start of September to do an overhaul of the document. (For the "snipped" parts see Alains previous email.)
In the mean-time, if anyone has any other comments/corrects, please do send them either directly to me, or via the ip-dvb list.
There is one thing I'd like to get a feeling for from the list:Do we need to support a maximum paylaod size of approx 64KB? I've asked this several times, and most people seem to agree we don't need to support payloads this big, nor is it likely to be significant issue for this type of network in the future. I'd advocate at least 16 KB, could we live with a little less than 32 KB as the maximum payload size??? Is there anyone with other views out there?
Thoughts? Gorry alain.ritoux@6wind.com wrote:
Hi Gorry and all,
For the ULE methode, I made the following hypothsis :
- Padding at the end of TS si dobne with 0xff
- End Indicator is 0xffff
- It is forbidden for a SNDU to start in a TS cell if
it has not room left for its first 2 bytes
So to summary all previous things, and have all sugestions in a single
mail (sorry for repetition with older postings), I would propose the
following changes for the draft :
<<snip>>
3) Precision about SNDU format ------------------------------- 4. SDNU Format "The special value 0x0000 indicates that there are no further SNDU within the current TS packet (see section 5.1). The maximum value is 65531" becomes "The special value 0xffff indicates that there are no further SNDU within the current TS packet (see section 5.1). The maximum value is 65530" <<snip>> Any comment welcomed. Cheers. Alain.