[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [ipcdn] FW: WG Review: IP over DVB (ipdvb)
Hi Bert,
Yes, we've received similar comments from others, as well.
This was, apparently, discussed in the BOF (I wasn't
there, as it pre-dated me) but there may have been some
confusion and/or not everyone with an interest in this
area was represented in the BOF.
I'm in the process of trying to find out enough about other
work in this area (the work that Greg cited and others),
so that I can understand exactly what the IETF needs to
do here, if anything...
At a minimum, we will need to figure that out and make it
clear in the charter.
Margaret
> -----Original Message-----
> From: iesg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:iesg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of ext
> Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 4:42 PM
> To: Iesg (E-mail)
> Subject: FW: [ipcdn] FW: WG Review: IP over DVB (ipdvb)
>
>
> Feedback from IPCDN WG member
>
> Thanks,
> Bert
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg White [mailto:g.white@CableLabs.com]
> Sent: dinsdag 28 oktober 2003 0:36
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Cc: Jean-Francois Mule; Richard_Woundy@cable.comcast.com
> Subject: RE: [ipcdn] FW: WG Review: IP over DVB (ipdvb)
>
>
> Bert,
>
> I'm not sure if you've gotten any comments from others in IPCDN, but I
> am a bit confused on the scope of the proposed WG. The name indicates
> "IP over DVB", yet the discussion below, and on the IP-DVB webpage
> indicate that perhaps it really is IP over MPEG-2.
>
> As you know, IPCDN is chartered with developing MIBs for IP over Cable
> Data Networks. The standardized Cable Data Networks that are the
> subject of all of IPCDN's current work use MPEG-2 transport and in
> particular Cable Data Networks in Europe use MPEG-2/DVB.
> These systems
> are widely deployed for the encapsulation of IP over MPEG-2.
>
> I've glanced through draft-fair-ipdvb-req-02.txt, and don't see any
> mention of the work that IPCDN and other standards bodies (SCTE, ETSI,
> ITU-T) have done in this regard. What isn't clear to me is the
> relationship between the existing work, and what is being proposed by
> this working group.
>
> Sorry for the late comments.
>
> Regards,
> Greg White
> CableLabs
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 7:30 PM
> To: Ipcdn (E-mail)
> Subject: [ipcdn] FW: WG Review: IP over DVB (ipdvb)
>
>
> IPCDN folk, please check if this has overlap or conflicts
> with your WG.
>
> Thanks,
> Bert
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The IESG [mailto:iesg-secretary@ietf.org]
> Sent: maandag 20 oktober 2003 22:02
> Cc: new-work@ietf.org; ip-dvb@erg.abdn.ac.uka.cnri.reston.va.us
> Subject: WG Review: IP over DVB (ipdvb)
>
>
> A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Internet Area.
> The IESG has not made any determination as yet. The following
> description
> was submitted, and is provided for informational purposes
> only. Please
> send
> your comments to the IESG mailing list (iesg@ietf.org) by
> October 27th.
>
> IP over DVB (ipdvb)
> -------------------
>
> Current Status: Proposed Working Group
>
> Description of Working Group:
>
> The MPEG-2 Transport Stream provides a transmission network that has
> become
> widely use to support digital TV broadcast, including: DVB, ATSC,
> ISDB-T.
> These, and related standards, define a set of commercially available
> components that are increasingly being used to provide a
> general-purpose
> packet transmission network. MPEG-2 Transport networks are being used
> to
> build IP networks to supplement broadcast TV/audio services and also
> provide
> one-way and two-way IP-only subnetworks.
>
> There is a need to define an efficient standardised encapsulation for
> IPv4
> and IPv6 datagrams, and to recommend procedures for supporting
> protocols.
> Examples include dynamic address resolution, multicast group
> membership
> reporting and possibly management information tables and MIBs.
> Documents
> will be defined that describe protocols required to build a complete
> IPv4/IPv6 unicast/multicast services, and the mappings required to
> perform
> dynamic address resolution. The primary purpose of this working group
> is to
> develop a set of Internet Drafts and where appropriate to progress
> these as
> either Internet Informational RFCs or Standards track RFCs.
>
> The current list of work items is:
>
> 1. Issue an Internet Draft specifying Requirements and Framework for
> supporting IP services via MPEG-2 transmission networks. Such
> requirements
> should consider the range of platforms currently (or
> anticipated to be)
> in
> use. This draft will be submitted to the IESG for possible
> publication
> as
> an Informational RFC.
>
> 2. The working group will investigate and design an efficient
> encapsulation
> method for IPv4/IPv6, and advance this via the IESG to a
> standards-track
> RFC. The design needs to consider the need for MAC addresses, the
> potential
> need for synchronisation between streams, support for IPv6 and
> multicast
> services, and support for multiple gateways (feeds).
>
> 3. The working group will consider the options for unicast and
> multicast
> address resolution. A working group Internet Draft will define a
> framework
> and recommend appropriate address resolution mechanisms for IPv4 and
> IPv6
> using both the existing Multi-Protocol Encapsulation and any new
> encapsulation developed by the working group. Consideration will be
> paid to
> existing standards, and the cases for IPv6 and IPv4 will be
> described.
> This
> document will be submitted to the IESG for publication as an
> Informational
> RFC.
>
> 4. A working group Internet Draft will be written to
> recommend a set of
> dynamic address resolution procedures for IPv6. It will describe the
> protocol and syntax of the information exchanged. This work may be
> based on
> an extension to the Neighbor Discovery (ND) protocol to
> support MPEG-2
> transmission, and include specific optimisations for broadcast
> networks.
> This document will be submitted to the IESG for publication as a
> standards-track RFC.
>
> 5. If there is a need for further supporting protocols, it will
> consider a
> possible recharter under the guidance of the IESG. Examples in this
> area
> include, the negotiation/association of IP QoS with MPEG-2 transport
> streams, address resolution for IPv4, and the need for SNMP MIBs.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IPCDN mailing list
> IPCDN@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipcdn
>
>