<html 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;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Bob, Kiyo, Howie, Marcus, Tomaso, and Rodney,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I’m sending along the attached PPT file as a proposed input to the joint DTN WG / Sec WG discussion. These are materials that relate to the new IOAG Security WG that Daniel Fischer and I co-chair, my detailed review of the LunaNet V5 draft
LNIS spec, and some related security / identity and registry issues identified in the current DTN “protocol suite”.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I have just reviewed these with the Security WG and they concur with the statements made in this package. This is not a deep analysis of these issues, but there should be enough background to understand the issues. I / we would like to
encourage the development, in fairly short order, of a clear understanding of what is needed to provide the necessary standardized infrastructure to manage identities of all involved assets, register nodes and service sites, provide node IDs, etc.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">There are associated concerns with routing, link layer attributes, network & link management, that also need to be standardized in some way for DTN to meet the vision that LNIS wishes to achieve, but LNIS, at this point, does not even admit
that such things are a concern. Nor does it deal with the required set of protocol gateways to do “impedance matching” between “islands” of IP users who are locally connected and the DTN long haul backbone. Much work to be done, in my opinion, both for LNIS
and DTN. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Within CCSDS I would like to get some agreement on the set of standards and registries to be developed and the priority for these. Unfortunately, I will not be in the joint meeting, I have a WG of my own at the same time. But I am happy
to discuss this with any of you at any jointly workable time.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
Thanks, Peter<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>