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

[Marie-Jose Montpetit <[e-mail]>]

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 <[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]
>
>
>

Marie-Jose Montpetit
[e-mail]