RE: New mailing list documents

[William StanisLaus <williams77@mailandnews.com>]

Hi Fairhurst,
     Thanks for the drafts.. I am a new bee.. and have a basic question, Does 
these Encapsulations is to replace DSM-CC... in MPE ??.
     How do we do MAC filtering in DVB Receivers, If MPE doesn't have 
information about Destination MAC address ??

Thanks in advance.

Best Regards,
William.

>===== Original Message From Dr G Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> =====
>Two new "draft" Internet Drafts are now available for comments.
>
>Lightweight Encapsulation rev 01
>http://www.erg.abdn.ac.uk/users/gorry/ip-dvb/ids/draft-unisal-ipdvb-enc-01.tx
t
>
>Ultra Lightweight Encapsulation (ULE) rev 00
>http://www.erg.abdn.ac.uk/users/gorry/ip-dvb/ids/draft-fair-ipdvb-ule-00.txt
>
>
>
>These two drafts capture the comments the authors have received on the 
encapsulation.
>In answering the comments from people concerning how to implement, we 
discovered
>there were in fact two varients of the protocol.
>
>* One was oriented to a wide range of transport services and was based
>on PES
>  packets - it thus could be used in a very flexible way. It employs the AFC
>  bits and an adaptation field for framing.
>
>*  The other approach (ULE)  is based solely on "raw" transport streams.
>   This does NOT use the adaptation field, and it can NOT be used for
>PES streams.
>   It uses a pointer signalled by the PUSI to synchronise framing.
>
>To get the best possible feedback, and to avoid confusion when we
>discuss these,
>the authors agreed to split the protocols into the two separate drafts.
>That's why
>you suddenly see two ID's in place of the one. So, let's debate the 
pros/cons!
>
>We can go forward with one of these, both of these in a combined 
encapsulation,
>or some other scheme - if there are comments, suggestions, please do say 
soon!
>
>Gorry & Bernhard.