draft-ietf-mmusic-img-framework-07.txt   draft-ietf-mmusic-img-framework-08.txt 
skipping to change at page 1, line 13 skipping to change at page 1, line 13
Internet Engineering Task Force MMUSIC WG Internet Engineering Task Force MMUSIC WG
Internet Draft Y. Nomura Internet Draft Y. Nomura
Fujitsu Labs. Fujitsu Labs.
R. Walsh R. Walsh
J-P. Luoma J-P. Luoma
Nokia Nokia
H. Asaeda H. Asaeda
INRIA INRIA
H. Schulzrinne H. Schulzrinne
Columbia University Columbia University
draft-ietf-mmusic-img-framework-07.txt draft-ietf-mmusic-img-framework-08.txt
June 21, 2004 July 19, 2004
Expires: December 2004 Expires: January 2005
A Framework for the Usage of Internet Media Guides A Framework for the Usage of Internet Media Guides
STATUS OF THIS MEMO STATUS OF THIS MEMO
By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance
with RFC 3668." with RFC 3668."
skipping to change at page 2, line 36 skipping to change at page 2, line 36
4.3 One-to-one Bi-directional Unicast ................... 13 4.3 One-to-one Bi-directional Unicast ................... 13
4.4 Combined Operations with Common Metadata ............ 14 4.4 Combined Operations with Common Metadata ............ 14
5 Applicability of Existing Protocols to the 5 Applicability of Existing Protocols to the
Proposed Framework Model ............................ 14 Proposed Framework Model ............................ 14
5.1 Existing Standard Fit to the IMG Framework Model .... 14 5.1 Existing Standard Fit to the IMG Framework Model .... 14
5.2 Outstanding IMG Mechanism Needs ..................... 16 5.2 Outstanding IMG Mechanism Needs ..................... 16
5.2.1 A Multicast Transport Protocol ...................... 16 5.2.1 A Multicast Transport Protocol ...................... 16
5.2.2 Usage of Unicast Transport Protocols ................ 17 5.2.2 Usage of Unicast Transport Protocols ................ 17
5.2.3 IMG Envelope ........................................ 17 5.2.3 IMG Envelope ........................................ 17
5.2.4 Baseline (Meta)Data Model Specification ............. 18 5.2.4 Baseline (Meta)Data Model Specification ............. 18
5.3 IMG Needs Fitting the IETF's Scope .................. 19
6 Security Considerations ............................. 19 6 Security Considerations ............................. 19
7 IANA Considerations ................................. 21 7 IANA Considerations ................................. 20
8 Normative References ................................ 21 8 Normative References ................................ 20
9 Informative References .............................. 21 9 Informative References .............................. 21
10 Acknowledgements .................................... 22 10 Acknowledgements .................................... 21
11 Authors' Addresses .................................. 22 11 Authors' Addresses .................................. 22
12 Full Copyright Statement ............................ 23 12 Full Copyright Statement ............................ 23
1 Introduction 1 Introduction
Internet Media Guides (IMGs) provide and deliver structured Internet Media Guides (IMGs) provide and deliver structured
collections of multimedia descriptions expressed using SDP [2], collections of multimedia descriptions expressed using SDP [2],
SDPng [3] or other description formats. They are used to describe SDPng [3] or other description formats. They are used to describe
sets of multimedia services (e.g. television program schedules, sets of multimedia services (e.g. television program schedules,
content delivery schedules) and refer to other networked content delivery schedules) and refer to other networked
skipping to change at page 19, line 20 skipping to change at page 19, line 20
Further work may be needed to meet application-specific requirements Further work may be needed to meet application-specific requirements
at defining metadata and data models for the successful deployment of at defining metadata and data models for the successful deployment of
IMGs in various environments. Existing (and future) work on these IMGs in various environments. Existing (and future) work on these
would need to be mapped to the IMG data types and use of the IMG would need to be mapped to the IMG data types and use of the IMG
transfer envelope concept as described above. transfer envelope concept as described above.
This document is a framework for the delivery of IMG metadata and This document is a framework for the delivery of IMG metadata and
thus further discussion on the definition data models for IMGs is thus further discussion on the definition data models for IMGs is
beyond its scope. beyond its scope.
5.3 IMG Needs Fitting the IETF's Scope
A multicast transport protocol is essential to IMG delivery for
unidirectional and multicast deployments and no alternative exists
which fulfils the IMG requirements. We recommend that the
specification of this be taken on as an official work item in the
IETF.
Specification of the usage of unicast transport protocols is
essential for IMG delivery and control involving unicast
communications, and will relate to existing IETF standard transport
protocols. Thus, we recommend that the specification of this be taken
on as an official work item in the IETF.
The IMG metadata transfer envelope functionality is essential for the
IMG delivery fulfilling the IMG requirements. It is a required
feature for IMG metadata transport and maintenance. Thus, we
recommend that the IMG transfer envelope specification be taken on as
an official work item in the IETF.
(Meta)data model specification and application specific metadata do
not easily fit into the IETF scope and several other standardization
bodies are well placed to do this work. This aspect need not be an
official IETF work item.
Note, we acknowledge the need to exchange and agree on a baseline
metadata model and application specific metadata for the purposes of
interoperability testing between different implementations of IMG
related IETF protocols. However, we feel that the IETF standards
process may not be required for this.
6 Security Considerations 6 Security Considerations
The IMG framework is developed from the IMG requirements document [4] The IMG framework is developed from the IMG requirements document [4]
and so the selection of specific protocols and mechanism for use with and so the selection of specific protocols and mechanism for use with
the IMG framework must also take into account the security the IMG framework must also take into account the security
considerations of the IMG requirements document. This framework considerations of the IMG requirements document. This framework
document does not mandate the use of specific protocols. However, an document does not mandate the use of specific protocols. However, an
IMG specification would inherit the security considerations of IMG specification would inherit the security considerations of
specific protocols used, although this is outside the scope of this specific protocols used, although this is outside the scope of this
document. document.
Protocol instantiations which are used to provide IMG operations will Protocol instantiations which are used to provide IMG operations will
 End of changes. 

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.23, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/