Re: Réf. : Re: IPDVB Provisional Agenda (IETF-75)

[Bernhard Collini-Nocker <bnocker@cosy.sbg.ac.at>]

Sure, the scope should be well-defined such that there is little or no 
overlap.

On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, Marie-Jose Montpetit wrote:
> No but they support all the rest of the ground infrastructure... I am just 
> saying there are valuable approaches we do not need to re-invent.
>
> /mjm
> On Jul 7, 2009, at 9:25 AM, Bernhard Collini-Nocker wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, Marie-Jose Montpetit wrote:
> > > Do you mean a complete revamp like in clean slate or just accepting that 
> > > satellite networks are "just another network" and adopt something done 
> > > elsewhere in 3GPP or TISPAN?
> >
> > Perhaps I miss an important detail, but do 3GPP or TISPAN deal with and/or 
> > support rx-only devices and boot-strapping of those?
> >
> > > /mjm
> >
> > --Bernhard
> >
> > > On Jul 7, 2009, at 5:36 AM, cedric.baudoin@thalesaleniaspace.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all
> > > > This is a really important topic. I do agree that a complete revamp of 
> > > > the signaling is a key point if we want to improve the interoperability 
> > > > and to address "all IP satcom systems" (or at least IP friendly ;-) )
> > > > Best regards
> > > > Cédric Baudoin
> > > > <graycol.gif>Bernhard Collini-Nocker <bnocker@cosy.sbg.ac.at>
> > > > <ecblank.gif>
> > > > <ecblank.gif>
> > > > Bernhard Collini-Nocker <bnocker@cosy.sbg.ac.at>
> > > > Envoyé par : owner-ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk
> > > > 07/07/2009 09:00
> > > > Veuillez répondre à ipdvb
> > > > <ecblank.gif>
> > > > Pour :	ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk
> > > > cc :	Objet :	Re: IPDVB Provisional Agenda (IETF-75)
> > > > Dear all,
> > > > in my opinion there is a need to get rid of the transport stream
> > > > encapsulated PSI/SI sections/tables in the second generation DVB systems
> > > > for signaling purposes, especially in those cases where only Generic
> > > > Stream Encapsulation is being used. Essentially there are two kinds of
> > > > signaling, one for physical link and network properties, and the other
> > > > one for services. The latter one is well addressed by all those parties
> > > > interested in AV/TV/... over IP, whereas the first one is still delt
> > > > with so-called backward compatibility mode (so TS encapsulated signaling
> > > > sections). Although ULE/GSE provide an extension header for carrying TS
> > > > packets, this is a suboptimal choice given that any kind of signaling
> > > > shall support unidirectional mode of operation and boot strapping of
> > > > rx-only devices.
> > > > This is not to propose a solution rather than to point out that there is
> > > > standardisation work needed in this area. Whether it fits in the ipdvb
> > > > agenda is to be discussed.
> > > > Best wishes,
> > > > Bernhard
> > > > Gorry Fairhurst schrieb:
> > > > > Can I remind the group that if people think the ipdvb working group
> > > > > should continue, then they need to tell Martin and me some important
> > > > > topics that need to be addressed - please send email to us or the list.
> > > > > If anyone would like to use a few slides to talk about topics that are
> > > > > important, please let me know, and we can allocate some agenda time.
> > > > > The provisional agenda is at:
> > > > > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09jul/agenda/ipdvb.txt
> > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > Gorry Fairhurst
> > > > > (ipdvb Chair)
> > >
> > > Marie-Jose Montpetit
> > > marie@mjmontpetit.com
>
> Marie-Jose Montpetit
> marie@mjmontpetit.com