Re: Revised IP over mpeg-2/DVB charter

[Dr G Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>]

Nice to hear from you, see below.

"Michael A. Dolan" wrote:
> 
> Hi-
> 
> I just joined this list, so am coming at this work entirely out of
> context.  But I wanted to understand the scope and requirements as it moves
> to an IETF WG.  

Well, to be technically correct, we are asking the IETF to consider the work.
The BOF is a chance to exchange ideas, get feedback, set goals, and
talk. 
It also helps the IESG work out how to support the work. 

A BOF doesn't imply an IETF WG will happen, and anyway a WG isn't needed 
neccessarily to do work. What is needed, is to understand the problem 
and to get IESG Review/approval for the work. We seem to be progressing.
 
> Thanks in advance for your indulgence....
> 
> 1. The proposed working group name is "IP over DVB", yet the charter says
> it is intended for any MPEG-2 transport stream.  Is it the intent of this
> group to develop documents relating to non-DVB transports (ATSC, ARIB,
> video servers, and others)?
> 

YES, please *DO* take this to mean DVB, DAB, ATSC, ARIB, whatever.

The word "DVB" in the title really is a mixed blessing. On the one 
hand, it represents a large community of users, manufacturer and 
operators that are a major player in the MPEG-2 world.  

*HOWEVER* I believe we should ***TRY HARD*** to find solutions that
work for all the MPEG-2 systems.  This may be hard, or it may be easy,
if you have opinions on this (or what might be needed) please do speak
up.  We need inputs from experts on all MPEG-2 Transport systems
that do / may carry IP services.

> 2. The second paragraph says, "There is therefore a need to define an
> efficient standardised encapsulation for IPv4 and IPv6 datagrams...".  This
> statement seems to presume that the ISO MPEG 13818-6 Amendment #1 (and the
> related ETSI 301192 and ATSC A/90 and ATSC A/92) that everyone uses today
> are somehow unsuitable for some reason.  

MPE is fine, for some applications, and is likely to be long-lived,
in those scenarios.

It does however have some serious shortfalls for some applications,
and these may be of significant concern especially in IP-only networks.

> I think it would be helpful to add
> something between these paragraphs that supports the need for the
> development of a new encapsulation.  Alternatively, one could soften the
> "therefore there is a need" to something like "investigate and recommend".

The "requirements" draft contains some of the rationale behind this
conclusion. Do you think we need to say more? (have you suggestions?)

Best wishes,

Gorry Fairhurst

> Regards,
> 
>          Mike
> 
> At 10:00 AM 6/20/2003 +0100, gorry wrote:
> 
> >A revised charter has been uploaded to the ip-dvb server at:
> >http://www.erg.abdn.ac.uk/ip-dvb/charter.html
> >
> >Please do send corrections to me and comments to the ip-dvb list.
> >
> >Best wishes,
> >
> >Gorry
> >
> >P.S. The index page has also been updated (long overdue!) at:
> >http://www.erg.abdn.ac.uk/ip-dvb/index.html
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Michael A. Dolan, President
> Television Broadcast Technology, Inc. (TBT)
> PO Box 1673 Alpine, CA 91903 USA
> 619-445-9070     FAX: 208-545-6564
> URL:http://www.tbt.com