[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Seoul
Hi Gorry,
it would be great to have a WG session or at least some face-to-face
discussions
at the next IETF meeting in Seoul.
I have some comments on the requirement documents and will post them
within the next days (currently busy).
Regards,
Martin
> John,
>
> We are still not an IETF working group, but there has been progress
> behind the scenes.
>
> A proposed charter for this WG was circulated by the IESG to the IETF
> and Internet Area Chairs before the last Minneapolis IETF meeting.
> There was some feedback that we have been working to address resulting
> in the latest version of our proposed charter text below. We're still
> working to tune the milestones, etc. but I am expecting that this
> charter will be submited to the IESG for consideration at their next
> meeting on 22-Jan.
>
> We've had BoFs at the previous two IETFs. I am undecided about the need
> to call a meeting in Seoul (so if *anyone* has views, please do tell the
> list). It seems we are making progress with the ULE Spec, and that the
> requirements document is now in a position where the WG could offer
> comments and suggestions.
>
> If there is a need to meet, I'd be very willing to ask for a meeting
> slot, but obviously not all groups can meet at every IETF (there simply
> wouldn't be space), so the question is I guess, are there issues that
> need to be discussed, agenda items, or new inputs that we can expect in
> the next month?
>
> Gorry
>
> -------
>
>
> IP over MPEG-2/DVB (ipdvb)
>
> Chair(s):
> Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
>
> Responsible Area Director:
> Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com>
>
> Mailing Lists:
> General Discussion: ip-dvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk
> To subscribe: subscribe ip-dvb at majordomo@erg.abdn.ac.uk
> Archive: http://www.erg.abdn.ac.uk/ip-dvb/archive/
>
> Description of Working Group:
> The WG will develop new protocols and architectures to enable better
> deployment of IP over MPEG-2 transport and provide easier interworking
> with IP networks. Specific properties of this subnetwork technology
> include link-layer support for unicast and multicast, large numbers
> of down-stream receivers, and efficiency of transmission. These
> properties resemble those in some other wireless networks. The specific
> ndards: DVB-RCS; DVB-S and DVB-T and related ATSC Specifications) in
> protocols on the existing generation of networks.
>
> The WG will endeavour to reuse existing open standard technologies,
> giving guidance on usage in IP networks, whenever they are able to
> fulfil requirements. For instance, it acknowledges the existing
> Multiprotocol Encapsulation (MPE) [ATSC A/90;ETSI EN 301192] and that
> this will continue to be deployed in the future to develop new markets.
> Any alternative encapsulation would need to co-exist with MPE.
>
> Appropriate standards will be defined to support transmission of IPv4
> and IPv6 datagrams between IP networks connected using MPEG-2 transport
> subnetworks. This includes options for encapsulation, dynamic unicast
> address resolution for IPv4/IPv6, and the mechanisms needed to map
> routed IP multicast traffic to the MPEG-2 transport subnetwork. The
> standards will be appropriate to both MPE and any alternative
> encapsulation method developed. The developed protocols may also be
> applicable to other multicast enabled subnetwork technologies supporting
> large numbers of directly connected systems.
>
> The current list of work items is:
> Specify the requirements and architecture for supporting IPv4/IPv6 via
> MPEG-2 transmission networks. Such requirements should consider the range
> of platforms currently (or anticipated to be) in use. This draft will be
> an Informational RFC.
>
> Define a standards-track RFC defining an efficient encapsulation method.
> The design will consider the need for MAC addresses, the potential need
> for synchronisation between streams, support for a wide range of IPv4/IPv6
> and multicast traffic.
>
> Provide an Informational RFC describing a framework for unicast and
> multicast address resolution over MPEG-2 transmission networks. The
> document will describe options for the address resolution process,
> relating these to appropriate usage scenarios and suggesting appropriate
> protocol mechanisms for both the existing Multi-Protocol Encapsulation
> (MPE) and the efficient encapsulation (2). Consideration will be paid to
> existing standards, and the cases for IPv6 and IPv4 will be described.
>
> Define standards-track RFC(s) to specify procedures for dynamic address
> resolution for IPv4/IPv6. This will describe the protocol and syntax of
> the information exchanged to bind unicast and multicast flows to the
> MPEG-2
> TS Logical Channels. This will include specific optimisations
> appropriate for
> networks reaching large numbers of down-stream systems.
>
> Goals and Milestones:
>
> JAN 04 Draft of a WG Architecture ID describing usage of MPEG-2
> transport for IP transmission.
> MAR 04 Draft of a WG ID on the new Encapsulation.
> JUL 04 Draft of a WG ID on the AR Framework, specifying mechanisms
> to perform address resolution.
> JUL 04 Submit Architecture to IESG
> OCT 04 Draft of a WG ID or the AR Protocol, defining a protocol to
> perform IP address resolution.
> OCT 04 Submit Encapsulation to IESG
> APR 05 Submit AR Framework to IESG
> AUG 05 Submit AR Protocol to IESG
> AUG 05 Progress the Encapsulation RFC along the IETF standards track.
>
>
>>
>>
>
>