<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ligatures:standardcontextual;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ligatures:none;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Tomaso,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:#2E75B6;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#2E75B6;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%">Any commercial and government entities that wish to submit comments, questions, or suggestions may do so using the form provided
below. <strong><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">We request that these inputs be submitted before the end of November 2023</span></strong>. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I hope this helps.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Regards, Peter<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black;mso-ligatures:none">From:
</span></b><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black;mso-ligatures:none">"Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de" <Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de><br>
<b>Date: </b>Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 7:36 AM<br>
<b>To: </b>Peter Shames <peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov><br>
<b>Cc: </b>CESG <cesg@mailman.ccsds.org><br>
<b>Subject: </b>[EXTERNAL] AW: Spec for review: LunaNet V5 spec links<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="DE" style="mso-ligatures:none"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="DE">HI Peter, <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="DE"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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 30<sup>th</sup>. My question is how CCSDS could provide
these comments in an harmonized way, i.e. through IOAG, CESG, or in uncoordinated manner?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thank you,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Tomaso<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="DE" style="mso-ligatures:none">Von:</span></b><span lang="DE" style="mso-ligatures:none"> CESG <cesg-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org>
<b>Im Auftrag von </b>Shames, Peter M (US 312B) via CESG<br>
<b>Gesendet:</b> Mittwoch, 13. September 2023 17:25<br>
<b>An:</b> CESG <cesg@mailman.ccsds.org><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> [CESG] Spec for review: LunaNet V5 spec links<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="DE"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Peter<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://urldefense.us/v3/__https:/www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/scan/engineering/lunanet_interoperability/__;!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!JGSkDsXXCZ-zTHeUoHQombYG_yqLglLt6e2ju7_3XKxH9sX1_KB5AZnKK9Om3T1zDXCaDaOFOLqZipBQWS7ASh2MZgJEbB6S$">https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/scan/engineering/lunanet_interoperability/</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>