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

[Bernhard Collini-Nocker <[e-mail]>]

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, [e-mail] 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 <[e-mail]>
>>>> <ecblank.gif>
>>>> <ecblank.gif>
>>>> Bernhard Collini-Nocker <[e-mail]>
>>>> Envoyé par : [e-mail]
>>>> 07/07/2009 09:00
>>>> Veuillez répondre à ipdvb
>>>> <ecblank.gif>
>>>> Pour :	[e-mail]
>>>> 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
>>> [e-mail]
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>
> Marie-Jose Montpetit
> [e-mail]
>
>
>