Re: Allocation of a stream descriptor for MPEG-2

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

See below...

Carsten Bormann wrote:
> On Mar 14 2005, at 20:57 Uhr, Allison, Art wrote:
>
> > And you seem to be referring to the ULE encapsulation -- that is not 
> > on the
> > table to discuss as that RFC is moving on in the process -- we are now
> > addressing how one standardizes how this class of packet is not confused
> > with other packets in a Standard MPEG-2 transport stream.
>
>
> Ah, you seem to be addressing writing a new document that describes this 
> mapping.
> This is certainly one good way to do this.
>
> In Minneapolis last week, we discussed the possibility of inserting the 
> code point for the stream descriptor into the existing ULE document, in 
> an "IANA action" like way (i.e. late in the RFC editor pipeline).
> Only in that context does my comment (the MPEG tables should not be a 
> mandatory part of the ULE encapsulation) make any sense.
>
> Gruesse, Carsten

Ah, yes Carsten, I now see where the confusion may have come from. Indeed, the 
suggestion at the working group meeting was that we should try to define one 
or descriptors that could be directly referenced as a small addition to the 
ULE RFC.  There is still a small time period in which we could propose such a 
final addition to ammend the document (with IESG approval), before it is 
published as an RFC.

I suggest this is worth considering, since such descriptors are *required* in 
the context of MPEG-2 TV networks. If we need to describe more of the 
mechanisms by which this should be done, we could include this as a part of 
the Address-Resolution (AR) Working Group document, when this is written.

Gorry