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

[Ana Yun <[e-mail]>]

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]
>>
>>
>>