--- 1/draft-ietf-mboned-multrans-addr-acquisition-03.txt 2014-09-02 21:14:40.580819524 -0700 +++ 2/draft-ietf-mboned-multrans-addr-acquisition-04.txt 2014-09-02 21:14:40.604820109 -0700 @@ -1,26 +1,26 @@ Internet Engineering Task Force T. Tsou Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies Intended status: Informational A. Clauberg -Expires: September 5, 2014 Deutsche Telekom +Expires: March 6, 2015 Deutsche Telekom M. Boucadair France Telecom S. Venaas Cisco Systems Q. Sun China Telecom - March 4, 2014 + September 2, 2014 Address Acquisition For Multicast Content When Source and Receiver Support Differing IP Versions - draft-ietf-mboned-multrans-addr-acquisition-03 + draft-ietf-mboned-multrans-addr-acquisition-04 Abstract Each IPTV operator has their own arrangements for pre-provisioning program information including addresses of the multicast groups corresponding to broadcast programs on the subscriber receiver. During the transition from IPv4 to IPv6, scenarios can occur where the IP version supported by the receiver differs from that supported by the source. This memo examines what has to be done to allow the receiver to acquire multicast address information in the version it @@ -34,21 +34,21 @@ Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - This Internet-Draft will expire on September 5, 2014. + This Internet-Draft will expire on March 6, 2015. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents @@ -355,31 +355,32 @@ model. The receiver obtains the actual access information for a given program, including the multicast group address and possibly a unicast source address, from XML-encoded program information following the Open IPTV Forum schema. The receiver uses SIP (Session Initiation Protocol [RFC3261]) signalling to obtain authorization and resources for a session, before signalling at the multicast level to acquire the program. The SIP signalling conveys the multicast group address and the unicast source address, if available, in the form of an SDP (Session Description Protocol [RFC4566]) session description. - Finally, the Open Mobile Alliance (OMA, http:// - www.openmobilealliance.org/) has defined a series of specifications - relating to broadcast services over wireless networks. The source - and multicast group addresses used to acquire a given program - instance are provided in SDP fragments either directly embedded in - the primary electronic program guide or pointed to by it. The OMA - architecture provides functionality to adapt access information - within the program guide to the requirements of the transport network - to which the user is attached, but this functionality appears to be - primarily directed toward overcoming differences in technology rather - than a general capability for modification. + Finally, the Open Mobile Alliance (OMA, + http://www.openmobilealliance.org/) has defined a series of + specifications relating to broadcast services over wireless networks. + The source and multicast group addresses used to acquire a given + program instance are provided in SDP fragments either directly + embedded in the primary electronic program guide or pointed to by it. + The OMA architecture provides functionality to adapt access + information within the program guide to the requirements of the + transport network to which the user is attached, but this + functionality appears to be primarily directed toward overcoming + differences in technology rather than a general capability for + modification. In conclusion, it appears that there are at least two extant sources of specifications for the receiver interface, each providing its own data model, XML data schema, and detailed architecture. In the OMA case, the access information including the source and multicast group addresses is embedded as an SDP fragment within a larger set of XML- encoded program metadata. The OMA metadata can be supplied to the receiver in multiple segments, through multiple channels. This complicates the task of intercepting that metadata and modifying it in a particular transport network.