report from ip-dvb

[Sally Floyd <floyd@icir.org>]

IP over MPEG-2/DVB Transport BOF

This seems well under control to me, with both ADs at the end of
the meeting, and a proposed charter that has been circulated and
which is in the process of being revised.

The goal is to use existing MPEG-2 transport technology
(e.g., satellite to the home for digital TV) to provide 
IPv4/IPv6 unicast/multicast service.

This follows an ip-dvb BoF at IETF-57: 
 http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/03jul/154.htm
I didn't go to that BOF, but the on-line presentation from that BOF
included arguments of why this work should be done at IETF instead
of at the MPEG committee of ISO/IEC, at DVB (the Digital Video
Broadcasting Project), or at ATSC (the Advanced Television Systems
Committee).

There werre ~40 people at the meeting.
I thought that Gorry did well, on both technical and process issues.
If it is chartered (and I am assuming that it will be), care will
have to be taken with relationships with other shandards bodies in
the area.

- Sally

--------------------------------------------------------------
Notes from the meeting:

Gorry Fairhurst.

Mailing list:
http://www.erg.abdn.ac.uk/ip-dvb/archive

Introduction to the planned work:
draft-fair-ipdvb-req-03.txt,
Requirements for transmission of IP datagrams over MPEG-2 networks 
How to use links provided by MPEG-2 transport topology.
  (E.g., satellite to the home for digital TV.)
Issues: 
  - protocols for MPEG interface; 
  - encapsulation for IP datagrams;
  - framework for implementation.

Encapsulation: ULE, Ultra-Lightweight Encapsulation.
  draft-fair-ipdvb-ule-01.txt

Address Resolution:
  draft-fair-ipdvb-ar-01.txt
Associates an IPv4/IPv6 address with a specific L2 MPEG address.
Three possible mechanisms:
  - Static entry into neighbor/arp cache.
  - Unsolicited advertisement tables.
  - Query/response mode.
      "I want this IP address, what is the MAC/PID?"
Open issues:
  - Multicast and scoped multicast addresses.
  - A technology-agnostic solution, for different MPEG-based networks.
  - Security.
  
Roadmap and Charter:
  Both area directors were present.
  The mailint list started in 2001.
  Bar-BOF at Salt Lake City.
  The charter is in IESG review.
Charter issues:  make it quite clear that this group is not trying
  to take over someone else's work (e.g., from another standards body).

Questions for open mic:
  * Should this be done in the IETF?
  * Is the list of deliverables good?
  * Is the scope clear?

Discussion:
* Rod: Likes the proposed revision to the charter that "clears the air" with 
  respect to other standards bodies.
* Only one of the two people who raised issues on the mailing list
  were present at the meeting.  This was about conflicts with
  other WGs or other standards bodies.
* Both ADs talked at the mike, Gorry and others will talk off-line,
  about charter phrasing.  "This in not an attempt to take-over
  work items from other groups."  The tone was friendly.
* Is there work from the far-East in this area?  Not known.