I agree...
On Jul 9, 2009, at 3:26 AM, Ana Yun wrote: Dear all, In or understanding there are two concepts. - The convergence to a global IP network, the NGN concept. For this we can take inputs from3GPP, ITU or TISPAN. - PSI/SI signalling over IP. How we could move all dvb signalling over IP Kind regards, Ana
2009/7/7 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
|