Subject: IPDVB Provisional Agenda (IETF-75)

From: Gorry Fairhurst <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:42:46 +0100

Can I remind the group that if people think the ipdvb working group 
should continue, then they need to tell Martin and me some important 
topics that need to be addressed - please send email to us or the list.

If anyone would like to use a few slides to talk about topics that are 
important, please let me know, and we can allocate some agenda time.

The provisional agenda is at:

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09jul/agenda/ipdvb.txt

Best wishes,

Gorry Fairhurst
(ipdvb Chair)

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 00:03:13 +0200

Sorry about focusing on some other drafts.

I can talk about about ROHC for IPDVB.
Please give me 15 minutes.
I won't have a draft by then -- only two hours left now :-)
But I can send an overview to the list before the meeting.

I should also say that we have been trying to get a ROHC hallway  
meeting going; I don't know its current status.  IPDVB would fit in  
there well.

Gruesse, Carsten

---

From: Gorry Fairhurst <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 07:01:04 +0100

Carsten Bormann wrote:
> I should also say that we have been trying to get a ROHC hallway meeting 
> going; I don't know its current status.  IPDVB would fit in there well.
> 
> Gruesse, Carsten
> 
> 

Thanks Carsten,

It would be good to discuss ROHC over DVB.

I've provisionally allocated 15 minutes, we may need to review this if 
there are more presenters, but for the moment this is fine.

Best wishes,

Gorry

---

From: Bernhard Collini-Nocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 09:00:08 +0200

Dear all,

in my opinion there is a need to get rid of the transport stream
encapsulated PSI/SI sections/tables in the second generation DVB systems
for signaling purposes, especially in those cases where only Generic
Stream Encapsulation is being used. Essentially there are two kinds of
signaling, one for physical link and network properties, and the other
one for services. The latter one is well addressed by all those parties
interested in AV/TV/... over IP, whereas the first one is still delt
with so-called backward compatibility mode (so TS encapsulated signaling
sections). Although ULE/GSE provide an extension header for carrying TS
packets, this is a suboptimal choice given that any kind of signaling
shall support unidirectional mode of operation and boot strapping of
rx-only devices.

This is not to propose a solution rather than to point out that there is
standardisation work needed in this area. Whether it fits in the ipdvb
agenda is to be discussed.

Best wishes,
Bernhard

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 11:36:33 +0200

Hi all

This is a really important topic. I do agree that a complete revamp of the
signaling is a key point if we want to improve the interoperability and to
address "all IP satcom systems" (or at least IP friendly ;-) )

Best regards

Cédric Baudoin

                      Bernhard                                                                                                                      
                      Collini-Nocker           Pour :   [email-masked]                                                                        
                      <[email-masked]         cc :                                                                                                 
                      g.ac.at>                 Objet :  Re: IPDVB Provisional Agenda (IETF-75)                                                      
                      Envoyé par :                                                                                                                  
                      owner-ipdvb@erg.                                                                                                              
                      abdn.ac.uk                                                                                                                    

                      07/07/2009 09:00                                                                                                              
                      Veuillez                                                                                                                      
                      répondre à ipdvb                                                                                                              

Dear all,

Best wishes,
Bernhard

---

From: Marie-Jose Montpetit <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 07:18:53 -0400

Do you mean a complete revamp like in clean slate or just accepting  
that satellite networks are "just another network" and adopt something  
done elsewhere in 3GPP or TISPAN?

/mjm
On Jul 7, 2009, at 5:36 AM, [email-masked] wrote:

> Hi all
>
> This is a really important topic. I do agree that a complete revamp  
> of the signaling is a key point if we want to improve the  
> interoperability and to address "all IP satcom systems" (or at least  
> IP friendly ;-) )
>
> Best regards
>
> Cédric Baudoin
>
> Bernhard Collini-Nocker <[email-masked]>
>
>
> Bernhard Collini-Nocker <[email-masked]>
> Envoyé par : [email-masked]
> 07/07/2009 09:00
> Veuillez répondre à ipdvb
>
>
> Pour :	[email-masked]
> cc :	
> Objet :	Re: IPDVB Provisional Agenda (IETF-75)
>
>
> Dear all,
>

Marie-Jose Montpetit
[email-masked]

---

From: Bernhard Collini-Nocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 15:25:59 +0200 (CEST)

On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, Marie-Jose Montpetit wrote:
> Do you mean a complete revamp like in clean slate or just accepting that 
> satellite networks are "just another network" and adopt something done 
> elsewhere in 3GPP or TISPAN?

Perhaps I miss an important detail, but do 3GPP or TISPAN deal with 
and/or support rx-only devices and boot-strapping of those?

> /mjm

--Bernhard

>> cc :	Objet :	Re: IPDVB Provisional Agenda (IETF-75)
>> 
>> 
>> Dear all,
>>

---

From: Marie-Jose Montpetit <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 09:57:58 -0400

No but they support all the rest of the ground infrastructure... I am  
just saying there are valuable approaches we do not need to re-invent.

/mjm
On Jul 7, 2009, at 9:25 AM, Bernhard Collini-Nocker wrote:

>> that satellite networks are "just another network" and adopt  
>> something done elsewhere in 3GPP or TISPAN?
>
>>> This is a really important topic. I do agree that a complete  
>>> revamp of the signaling is a key point if we want to improve the  
>>> interoperability and to address "all IP satcom systems" (or at  
>>> least IP friendly ;-) )
>>> Best regards
>>> Cédric Baudoin

Marie-Jose Montpetit
[email-masked]

---

From: Bernhard Collini-Nocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 17:11:16 +0200 (CEST)

Sure, the scope should be well-defined such that there is little or no 
overlap.

On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, Marie-Jose Montpetit wrote:
> No but they support all the rest of the ground infrastructure... I am just 
> saying there are valuable approaches we do not need to re-invent.
>
> /mjm
>> Perhaps I miss an important detail, but do 3GPP or TISPAN deal with and/or 
>> support rx-only devices and boot-strapping of those?
>> 
>>> /mjm
>> 
>> --Bernhard
>> 
>>>> This is a really important topic. I do agree that a complete revamp of 
>>>> the signaling is a key point if we want to improve the interoperability 
>>>> and to address "all IP satcom systems" (or at least IP friendly ;-) )
>>>> Best regards
>>>> Cédric Baudoin

---

From: Ana Yun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 09:26:21 +0200

Dear all,

In or understanding there are two concepts.
- The convergence to a global IP network, the NGN concept. For this we can
take inputs from3GPP, ITU or TISPAN.
- PSI/SI signalling over IP. How we could move all dvb signalling over IP

Kind regards,
Ana

2009/7/7 Bernhard Collini-Nocker <[email-masked]>

>>>>> the signaling is a key point if we want to improve the interoperability and
>>>>> to address "all IP satcom systems" (or at least IP friendly ;-) )
>>>>> Best regards
>>>>> Cédric Baudoin

---

From: Marie-Jose Montpetit <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 05:40:29 -0400

I agree...
On Jul 9, 2009, at 3:26 AM, Ana Yun wrote:

> - The convergence to a global IP network, the NGN concept. For this  
> we can take inputs from3GPP, ITU or TISPAN.
> Sure, the scope should be well-defined such that there is little or  
> no overlap.
>
>
> No but they support all the rest of the ground infrastructure... I  
> am just saying there are valuable approaches we do not need to re- 
> invent.
>
> /mjm

Marie-Jose Montpetit
[email-masked]

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:43:09 +0200

> I can talk about about ROHC for IPDVB.

I also wrote a draft for that:  http://u.nu/36fj

> A new version of I-D, draft-bormann-rohc-over-802-02.txt has been  
> successfuly submitted by Carsten Bormann and posted to the IETF  
> repository.
>
> Filename:	 draft-bormann-rohc-over-802
> Revision:	 02
> Title:		 Robust Header Compression (ROHC) over 802 networks
> Creation_date:	 2009-07-13
> WG ID:		 Independent Submission
> Number_of_pages: 15
>
> Abstract:
> Various proposals have been submitted to the ROHC working group for
> enabling the use of ROHC [RFC3095] header compression over Ethernet,
> 802.11 and other 802-based links.
> Previous proposals generally suffered from a lack of systems
> perspective on 802 networks.  The present document attempts to supply
> some systems perspective and provides a rough outline for a solution.

(Yes, this is about ROHC for IPDVB, as well as other 802 and 802-like  
networks.)

Gruesse, Carsten

---

From: Gorry Fairhurst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 08:42:39 +0100

Carsten,

I think the new draft could be applicable to IPDVB and I have updated 
the Agenda to allow time to discuss this. Could people on the IPDVB 
mailing list please review this and provide comments to this mailing 
list or at the meeting,

Best wishes,

Gorry

The new agenda is at:

---

From: Ang Way Chuang <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 15:32:54 +0800

Hi Carsten,
	I don't know the negotiation very well. If I don't misinterpret the 
draft, the negotiation would be something like this:
	   R=1 (what I can decompress)	
sender <------------------------------ receiver
	   R=2 (I will send using these params)
sender -------------------------------------> receiver
	   R=4 (I too will send ROHC using these params)	
sender <------------------------------------- receiver

Wrong?

I'm not sure how ROHC will work properly with multicast.

Regards,
Ang Way Chuang

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 10:31:55 +0200

> sender <------------------------------------- receiver

Correct, that is what I'm proposing for the bidirectional case (e.g.,  
two devices connected by some form of bridged Ethernet/WLAN  
combination).  (The sender might then occasionally transmit R=4  
packets based on a NUD-like algorithm.)

> I'm not sure how ROHC will work properly with multicast.

That is the other case with R=6 at the end of section 6 (penultimate  
paragraph).
If the sender does not have direct information about the ROHC  
capabilities from its peer (which it would get based on negotiation  
packets with R=1 and R=4), the R=6 case allows setting up the  
compression based on some out-of-band information (such as  
configuration or some other negotiation protocol).  See the caveats in  
that paragraph.

Gruesse, Carsten