Re: code point for ULE

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

Thanks, Bernhard,

Your email has a good set of questions. We will need to find answers to all
of these questions.

I'd like to know the feeling of others in the ipdvb working group on this -
we need to ensure that the allocations are good for a range of MPEG-2
systems, and that we do the correct thing.

Several of these questions (see ***) will determine WHERE the code points
are registered, can we try to answer these first?

Gorry


On 11/3/05 10:32 am, "Bernhard Collini-Nocker" <bnocker@cosy.sbg.ac.at>
wrote:

> Dear list members,
> 
> the ipdvb wg chairperson has asked to start a discussion on the topic of
> a reasonable code point to identify an ULE "stream" in an MPEG-2
> transport multiplex.
> 
> Let me start the discussion with a proposal for two approaches:
> 
> A1. go for DVB-SI and include the data_broadcast_id for ULE in the
> data_broadcast_descriptor() in PMT. There has been advise by the
> chairman of the DVB-GBS group that such an ULE id could be self
> registered on the DVB website. However, a responsible person an
> organisation (likely a DVB member) needs to be named.
> 
> Q1.1: who should/would be the registrar?
> Q1.2: would it then ALSO be OK/neccessary to request to
> ARIB and ATSC?

*** I'm keen to hear people who have experience with organisations other
than DVB to speak about this.

> Q1.3: should the id be similar or identical among the standards?
> 
> A2. go for MPEG-2 PSI and request a stream_type for ULE to be included
> in the PMT. However, to my current knowledge "a registration in the
> official area is not foreseen as long as no commercial requirements are
> present".
> Q2.1: is anyone willing/interested to sum up commercial requirements for
> having ULE as "standard" stream type and can raise this issue in the
> releveant standardization body?
> Q2.2: if approach 1 is easier to achieve should approach 2 still be
> followed?
> 
> In my view both approaches can be followed in parallel and there is no
> need to do one exclusively.
> 

*** I'm keen to hear people's understanding.


> What is your opinion? Any other approaches that should be taken into
> cosnideration? Any concerns with one or all of the approaches?
> 

*** I'm also keen to hear people speak about this one.

> 
> Regards,
> Bernhard
>