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

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

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]