[CESG] [EXTERNAL] AW: Spec for review: LunaNet V5 spec links

[Matt Cosby]

Hi Tomaso & Peter,

I can give you the position from the IOAG... The IOAG Lunar WG has been asked (by the IOAG chair) to provide a coordinated IOAG response to this draft version. We will then apply a review on the comments to ensure that they align (and do not contradict) with the Lunar Communications Architecture report (here<https://www.ioag.org/Public%20Documents/Lunar%20communications%20architecture%20study%20report%20FINAL%20v1.3.pdf>).  We have also advised the working group that they can submit their comments through the IOAG, or through their agencies... or both.

I personally think that comments (and similar comments) coming from different fronts (CCSDS, agencies, IOAG, SFCG, etc) would "carry more weight"... however, the review process within LNIS is not clear to me.

I would therefore agree that CESG should encourage agencies to provide comments and then submit them as CCSDS.

Happy to chat through, if required.

Cheers,
Matt.

Matthew Cosby
Chief Technology Officer
Goonhilly Earth Station Ltd

[signature_1318327456]

From: Shames, Peter M (US 312B) <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 7:30 PM
To: Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de
Cc: cesg at mailman.ccsds.org; Asmar, Sami W (US 9100) <sami.w.asmar at jpl.nasa.gov>; Lichten, Stephen M (US 9000) <stephen.m.lichten at jpl.nasa.gov>; Matt Cosby <matt.cosby at goonhilly.org>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] AW: Spec for review: LunaNet V5 spec links

Hi Tomaso,

Thanks for raising this issue for discussion.  Version 4 of this spec has been availably publicly for some time, but it was not widely advertised, nor was project outside feedback sought.   This stance seems to have shifted to actually requesting review and feedback from a wider audience.  As the web page says:

Any commercial and government entities that wish to submit comments, questions, or suggestions may do so using the form provided below. We request that these inputs be submitted before the end of November 2023.
This LunaNet spec is being described as the product of a joint NASA/ESA effort, but that it is intended to involve other agencies and, eventually, commercial providers.  All of this is evident on the website.

You asked, specifically, how we could provide comments in a harmonized way.  And, as you point out, we could do this in the context of our agencies, via CCSDS (CESG), or via the IOAG.  I agree that a harmonized approach might have the most impact, where a single, coherent, set of inputs is provided.  This could be organized via the CESG, or it could be done in the context of the IOAG, via the Lunar Comm and Nav Architecture WGs or the new Security WG.  Most of this is out of my control, so I would have to defer to the CESG Chairs as to whether they want to try and coordinate a set of CCSDS inputs.  I do expect to coordinate a set of inputs for the new IOAG Security WG that Daniel Fischer and I co-chair.  Help with Security was explicitly sought.

To be frank, it's not clear to me whether a single, coordinated, input will carry more weight, or if a set of separate inputs that somehow align (or not) will carry more weight with the LunaNet team.  I don't have any insight into how they work.  If the CESG Chairs wish to coordinate a set of inputs from CCSDS I would certainly support that.   IOAG inputs are a separate matter.

I hope this helps.

Regards, Peter


From: "Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de<mailto:Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de>" <Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de<mailto:Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de>>
Date: Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 7:36 AM
To: Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Cc: CESG <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] AW: Spec for review: LunaNet V5 spec links

HI Peter,

I see there is a call with IOAG end of October about this, although I read from the NASA webpage you provided in the previous email that comments submission should happen within November 30th. My question is how CCSDS could provide these comments in an harmonized way, i.e. through IOAG, CESG, or in uncoordinated manner?

Thank you,

Tomaso

Von: CESG <cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>> Im Auftrag von Shames, Peter M (US 312B) via CESG
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 13. September 2023 17:25
An: CESG <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>>
Betreff: [CESG] Spec for review: LunaNet V5 spec links

This latest version of the LunaNet spec is out for review.  We really must take advantage of this opportunity to provide feedback.  Security is a known weak area (there are others). We were specifically invited to review and comment.

Peter

https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/scan/engineering/lunanet_interoperability/<https://urldefense.us/v3/__https:/www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/scan/engineering/lunanet_interoperability/__;!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!JGSkDsXXCZ-zTHeUoHQombYG_yqLglLt6e2ju7_3XKxH9sX1_KB5AZnKK9Om3T1zDXCaDaOFOLqZipBQWS7ASh2MZgJEbB6S$>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20230915/4c39a40d/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 16125 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20230915/4c39a40d/attachment-0001.jpg>