RE: Allocation of a stream descriptor for MPEG-2

["Allison, Art" <AAllison@nab.org>]

Ah...missed that context. So, I agree modifying the current encapsulation
layer RFC with the Transport layer requirements (beyond what was already
done -- just a pointer to look elsewhere for such) makes no sense.  
Art
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk [mailto:owner-ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk] On
Behalf Of Carsten Bormann
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 3:30 PM
To: ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk
Cc: Carsten Bormann
Subject: Re: Allocation of a stream descriptor for MPEG-2

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