From CraigD at aiaa.org Tue Dec 2 17:31:18 2008 From: CraigD at aiaa.org (Craig Day) Date: Tue Dec 2 16:56:47 2008 Subject: [CMC] Draft CMC/CESG Meeting Minutes Message-ID: Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2472 bytes Desc: image.jpg Url : http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cmc/attachments/20081202/eab7109e/image.jpg From adrian.j.hooke at jpl.nasa.gov Tue Dec 2 19:41:15 2008 From: adrian.j.hooke at jpl.nasa.gov (Hooke, Adrian J) Date: Tue Dec 2 19:05:20 2008 Subject: [CMC] CCSDS Report to IOP-2 [Version-3] In-Reply-To: <005301c954d0$dd165990$97430cb0$@kaneaki@sky.plala.or.jp> References: <005301c954d0$dd165990$97430cb0$@kaneaki@sky.plala.or.jp> Message-ID: <26492362515BDB4AA42A64B790AD2EE22834D8AB95@ALTPHYEMBEVSP10.RES.AD.JPL> Narita: I think that this is an OUTSTANDING presentation. Sincere congratulations! I have just two small comments: Slide 9: "CCSDS acknowledges IOAG as the primary interoperability coordination entity". I recommend changing the word "the" to "a" primary interoperability coordination entity. Slide 13: I don't know if we will ever get this diagram agreed. Isn't the sense of the CMC that (a) CCSDS looks to the IOAG to be an important source of user requirements but (b) CCSDS is an independent international organization (which is both technically and politically broader in scope than the IOAG) and that CCSDS therefore reserves the right to form its own user liaisons? If so, can a diagram possibly explain this complexity? Maybe we should just delete this slide, or put a big question mark (?) over it and leave it to the IOP to debate the relationships? Best regards Adrian Hooke CCSDS Technical Liaison to the IOAG From Mike.Kearney at nasa.gov Tue Dec 2 19:40:17 2008 From: Mike.Kearney at nasa.gov (Kearney, Mike W. (MSFC-EO01)) Date: Tue Dec 2 19:05:45 2008 Subject: [CMC] FW: IOAG-12 Liaison Statement to CCSDS In-Reply-To: References: <5949C82F81D0794BBF9FF07DE2D359E3014996B3@NDMSEVS33B.ndc.nasa.gov> Message-ID: <5949C82F81D0794BBF9FF07DE2D359E3014FA290@NDMSEVS33B.ndc.nasa.gov> Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 2472 bytes Desc: image001.jpg Url : http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cmc/attachments/20081202/a9acb9d3/attachment-0001.jpe From Mike.Kearney at nasa.gov Tue Dec 2 21:25:38 2008 From: Mike.Kearney at nasa.gov (Kearney, Mike W. (MSFC-EO01)) Date: Tue Dec 2 20:51:25 2008 Subject: [CMC] RE: IOAG-12 Liaison Statement to CCSDS Message-ID: <5949C82F81D0794BBF9FF07DE2D359E3014FA292@NDMSEVS33B.ndc.nasa.gov> Skipped content of type multipart/related-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IOAG-12 Liaison Statement to CCSDS-final.doc Type: application/msword Size: 683008 bytes Desc: IOAG-12 Liaison Statement to CCSDS-final.doc Url : http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cmc/attachments/20081202/b9b04762/IOAG-12LiaisonStatementtoCCSDS-final-0001.doc From Mike.Kearney at nasa.gov Tue Dec 2 22:03:20 2008 From: Mike.Kearney at nasa.gov (Kearney, Mike W. (MSFC-EO01)) Date: Tue Dec 2 21:28:52 2008 Subject: [CMC] CCSDS-IOAG Liaison information In-Reply-To: <159B9A89C02F454194EB6C9779BDFD88@novopc12> References: <159B9A89C02F454194EB6C9779BDFD88@novopc12> Message-ID: <5949C82F81D0794BBF9FF07DE2D359E3014FA293@NDMSEVS33B.ndc.nasa.gov> Skipped content of type multipart/related-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IOAG-CCSDS relationship from CMC minutes.doc Type: application/msword Size: 30720 bytes Desc: IOAG-CCSDS relationship from CMC minutes.doc Url : http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cmc/attachments/20081202/2d008d21/IOAG-CCSDSrelationshipfromCMCminutes-0001.doc From Mike.Kearney at nasa.gov Wed Dec 3 22:53:06 2008 From: Mike.Kearney at nasa.gov (Kearney, Mike W. (MSFC-EO01)) Date: Wed Dec 3 22:18:34 2008 Subject: [CMC] REMINDER - CMC poll for projects ends Friday In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5949C82F81D0794BBF9FF07DE2D359E3014FA6A3@NDMSEVS33B.ndc.nasa.gov> This is a reminder that the CMC poll to approve all WG charters and projects that are currently in the system closes on Friday Dec 5. This is a critical poll, because it baselines and approves all of the work plans for all of the CCSDS working groups. And it shows where your agency has committed to support the CCSDS projects. The total list of projects is here: http://cwe.ccsds.org/fm/Lists/Projects/AllItems.aspx Some projects will list your agency under "Participation" on the schedule page for that project. Then, when you cast your vote to "Adopt" these projects, it signifies that your agency plans to contribute the resources (personnel and time) to accomplish the work that is described for that project. As we discussed in Berlin, we intend to have these projects approved and baselined before the IOP. Please review and vote to "Adopt" (or "Adopt with Provisions") to help us establish that baseline. Thanks very much for your attention to this important vote. -=- Mike Mike Kearney NASA MSFC EO-01 256-544-2029 From: secretariat-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org [mailto:secretariat-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org] On Behalf Of Craig Day Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 10:26 AM To: CCSDS Management Council Subject: [Secretariat] [CMC] New CMC Polls Dear CMC members, A new CMC poll has been posted to the CWE: CMC-P-2008-11-005 Approval of WG Projects and Schedules The closure date for this poll is 5 December 2008. This poll can be accessed via the following link: http://public.ccsds.org/sites/cwe/cmc/polls/default.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cmc/attachments/20081203/405ce31c/attachment.html From Jean-Francois.Kaufeler at esa.int Thu Dec 4 04:53:14 2008 From: Jean-Francois.Kaufeler at esa.int (Jean-Francois.Kaufeler@esa.int) Date: Thu Dec 4 04:19:02 2008 Subject: [CMC] RE: IOAG-12 Liaison Statement to CCSDS In-Reply-To: <5949C82F81D0794BBF9FF07DE2D359E3014FA292@NDMSEVS33B.ndc.nasa.gov> Message-ID: Skipped content of type multipart/related-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IOAG-12 Liaison Statement to CCSDS-final.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 683008 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cmc/attachments/20081204/7abb97cc/IOAG-12LiaisonStatementtoCCSDS-final-0001.obj From jean-marc.soula at cnes.fr Thu Dec 4 09:04:42 2008 From: jean-marc.soula at cnes.fr (Soula Jean-Marc) Date: Thu Dec 4 08:30:10 2008 Subject: [CMC] RE: IOAG-12 Liaison Statement to CCSDS In-Reply-To: <5949C82F81D0794BBF9FF07DE2D359E3014FA292@NDMSEVS33B.ndc.nasa.gov> Message-ID: Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 2472 bytes Desc: image001.jpg Url : http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cmc/attachments/20081204/4525921d/attachment-0001.jpe From Mike.Kearney at nasa.gov Thu Dec 4 09:35:52 2008 From: Mike.Kearney at nasa.gov (Kearney, Mike W. (MSFC-EO01)) Date: Thu Dec 4 09:01:19 2008 Subject: [CMC] RE: IOAG-12 Liaison Statement to CCSDS In-Reply-To: References: <5949C82F81D0794BBF9FF07DE2D359E3014FA292@NDMSEVS33B.ndc.nasa.gov> Message-ID: <5949C82F81D0794BBF9FF07DE2D359E3014FA717@NDMSEVS33B.ndc.nasa.gov> Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 2472 bytes Desc: image001.jpg Url : http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cmc/attachments/20081204/3fe56306/attachment-0001.jpe From jean-marc.soula at cnes.fr Thu Dec 4 09:51:55 2008 From: jean-marc.soula at cnes.fr (Soula Jean-Marc) Date: Thu Dec 4 09:17:23 2008 Subject: [CMC] RE: IOAG-12 Liaison Statement to CCSDS In-Reply-To: <5949C82F81D0794BBF9FF07DE2D359E3014FA717@NDMSEVS33B.ndc.nasa.gov> Message-ID: Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 2472 bytes Desc: image001.jpg Url : http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cmc/attachments/20081204/242bb3af/attachment-0001.jpe From Mike.Kearney at nasa.gov Thu Dec 4 09:56:42 2008 From: Mike.Kearney at nasa.gov (Kearney, Mike W. (MSFC-EO01)) Date: Thu Dec 4 09:22:09 2008 Subject: [CMC] RE: IOAG-12 Liaison Statement to CCSDS In-Reply-To: References: <5949C82F81D0794BBF9FF07DE2D359E3014FA717@NDMSEVS33B.ndc.nasa.gov> Message-ID: <5949C82F81D0794BBF9FF07DE2D359E3014FA744@NDMSEVS33B.ndc.nasa.gov> Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 2472 bytes Desc: image001.jpg Url : http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cmc/attachments/20081204/8ad31958/attachment-0001.jpe From Mike.Kearney at nasa.gov Thu Dec 4 18:21:28 2008 From: Mike.Kearney at nasa.gov (Kearney, Mike W. (MSFC-EO01)) Date: Thu Dec 4 17:47:15 2008 Subject: [CMC] FW: IOAG-12 Liaison Statement to CCSDS Message-ID: <5949C82F81D0794BBF9FF07DE2D359E301549893@NDMSEVS33B.ndc.nasa.gov> Skipped content of type multipart/related-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IOAG-12 Liaison Statement to CCSDS-final.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 683008 bytes Desc: IOAG-12 Liaison Statement to CCSDS-final.doc Url : http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cmc/attachments/20081204/6ebaf449/IOAG-12LiaisonStatementtoCCSDS-final-0001.obj From adrian.j.hooke at jpl.nasa.gov Wed Dec 10 13:08:01 2008 From: adrian.j.hooke at jpl.nasa.gov (Adrian J. Hooke) Date: Wed Dec 10 12:34:24 2008 Subject: [CMC] =?iso-8859-1?q?Communiqu=E9_from_IOP-2?= Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20081210123759.029f9d68@mail.jpl.nasa.gov> Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: FINAL Communique 12-10-08.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 289280 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cmc/attachments/20081210/c07ca307/FINALCommunique12-10-08-0001.obj From tomg at aiaa.org Wed Dec 10 15:41:18 2008 From: tomg at aiaa.org (Thomas Gannett) Date: Wed Dec 10 15:06:53 2008 Subject: [CMC] Results of CMC E-Poll Closing December 9, 2008 Message-ID: CMC E-Poll Identifier: CMC-P-2008-11-006 Authorization to Release Pink Sheets to Space Link Identifiers Results of CMC poll beginning 25 November 2008 and ending 9 December 2008: ADOPT: 11 (100%) (ASI, BNSC, CNES, CNSA, CSA, DLR, ESA, FSA, INPE, JAXA, NASA) ADOPT PROVISIONALLY: 0 (0%) REJECT: 0 (0%) REJECT WITH COMMENTS: 0 (0%) Results are based on responses from 11 out of 11 members (100%). All Areas responded to this question. Secretariat Interpretation of Results: Adopted Resulting CMC Resolution: CMC-R-2008-12-001 Inferred Secretariat Action: Release Review Document * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Thomas Gannett +1 443 472 0805 From CraigD at aiaa.org Wed Dec 10 16:25:31 2008 From: CraigD at aiaa.org (Craig Day) Date: Wed Dec 10 15:51:11 2008 Subject: [CMC] Results of CMC E-Poll Closing December 5, 2008 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: CMC E-Poll Identifier: CMC-P-2008-11-005 Approval of WG Projects and Schedules Results of CMC poll beginning 25 November 2008 and ending 5 December 2008 ADOPT: 4 (57.14%) (BNSC, CNSA, ESA, JAXA) ADOPT PROVISIONALLY: 3 (42.86%) (DLR, INPE, NASA) REJECT: 0 (0%) REJECT WITH COMMENTS: 0 (0%) DLR: There are some projects without producing anything. Should they be closed? - There is no participation given for - SOIS Subnetwork Device Discovery Service - Lossless Hyperspectral Image Compression (green, blue) - There is the Delay Tolerant Networking Working Group Green Book, which is said to be open to all members of the WG; but who is doing the work, what agency is taken the lead?? - There is a DLR participation indicated for the Pseudo-Noise (PN) ranging systems. Please dlete DLR in the participants list. INPE: This vote is an ADOPT. There is(are) NO condition(s) for this vote. However, this opportunity is being taken to suggest the opportune inclusion of an additonal column in the table of "CCSDS Management Framework" of PROJECTS, under the name/title of "Last Update" (i.e., date when the specific item of the table was last updated), or like. It is also being suggested that the insertion of this type of information for each of the items of the table may become valid ONLY for new (item/line) entries or for required (item/line) updates, which will become naturally necessary to the table, after the eventual implementation of the suggested column may be instrumented. NASA: Adopt with these provisions: For the documents under the SOIS Subnetwork Services WG, NASA agrees to approve the production of Magenta books as listed in the project list. However, there is a contradictory statement in the charter text for 4.1 Subnetwork Services under "Goals" in the final note that concludes with "The SOIS WG is clearly aiming at Blue Books." This statement contradicts this approval to produce magenta books, and is not agreed to by consensus within the WG. That sentence must be removed from the charter text as the provision for NASA approval of these projects. Note that the preceding text still states that the color of these books will be reassessed later. This is OK, considering that CCSDS processes will require that the results of any such re-assessment must be approved by the CMC. There are several projects with inadequate participation listed: - SOIS Subnetwork Device Discovery Service - SOIS Onboard Wireless WG Magenta book - Lossless Hyperspectral Image Compression (green and blue) - Delay Tolerant Networking Working Group Green Book Before approval these projects must list the participating agencies that are committing to provide the resources to accomplish the project. Results are based on responses from 7 out of 11 members (63.64%). No response was received from the following Agencies: ASI CNES CSA FSA Secretariat Interpretation of Results: Adopted Provisionally Resulting CMC Resolution: TBD Inferred Secretariat Action: Pending Disposition of Provisions * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cmc/attachments/20081210/a83a5ce8/attachment.htm From Jean-Francois.Kaufeler at esa.int Thu Dec 11 02:53:13 2008 From: Jean-Francois.Kaufeler at esa.int (Jean-Francois.Kaufeler@esa.int) Date: Thu Dec 11 02:19:04 2008 Subject: [CMC] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Communiqu=E9_from_IOP-2?= In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20081210123759.029f9d68@mail.jpl.nasa.gov> Message-ID: Adrian, for ESA this corresponds to an internally agreed position and we should integrate this in our work plan. Regards, JFK "Adrian J. Hooke" Sent by: cmc-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org 10.12.2008 19:08 To "CCSDS Management Council" , "CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - ADs" cc Subject [CMC] Communiqu? from IOP-2 Please find the attached final Communiqu? that was issued at this week's second Inter-Operability Plenary (IOP-2) meeting in Geneva, which concluded today. Your attention is drawn to the implications of Resolution #5, referencing IOAG R12.9.1 which states the following: "R 12.9.1 The IOAG requests the CCSDS: to develop as a priority cross support transfer service specifications for: a) end-to-end CFDP service and b) end-to-end space packet service. to initiate the transition to an end-to-end networked communications architecture by : a) developing a standard for CCSDS encapsulation service; b) developing the DTN suite as standards c) developing a recommended practice for the deployment of the IP suite. to consolidate existing standards and standards in work at a modest resource level, with a priority to the following: a) space link monitoring cross-support transfer service standard b) guideline for the interagency routine file transfer service (best practices recommendation) c) time synchronization services" Is CCSDS comfortable with accepting these priorities? Best regards Adrian J. Hooke Chairman, CCSDS Engineering Steering Group (CESG) and CCSDS Technical Liaison to the IOAG[attachment "FINAL Communique 12-10-08.doc" deleted by Jean-Francois Kaufeler/esoc/ESA] _______________________________________________ CMC mailing list CMC@mailman.ccsds.org http://mailman.ccsds.org/mailman/listinfo/cmc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cmc/attachments/20081211/3bafba32/attachment.html From jean-marc.soula at cnes.fr Thu Dec 11 09:51:01 2008 From: jean-marc.soula at cnes.fr (Soula Jean-Marc) Date: Thu Dec 11 09:16:44 2008 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?RE_=3A_=5BCMC=5D_Communiqu=E9_from_IOP-2?= In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20081210123759.029f9d68@mail.jpl.nasa.gov> Message-ID: Dear Adrian, resolution # 5 of the IOP-2 just endorses the resolution R 12.9.1 that was already submitted to the CMC by its Chair on Nov 21 and that was supposed to be relayed to the CESG on Nov 24 for their review and comments. The preliminary answer sent to the IOAG on Dec 05 says : "The CESG and CMC will also reconcile the resulting approach with the CCSDS agency priorities and the resources available for the work.". At my level, I do not see any reason why my agency would have different priorities in CCSDS and IOAG as we are driven on both sides by same missions and their schedules. Nevertheless, I'm interested in hearing the consolidated point of view of the CESG in terms of the difficulties they may have with the available resources to process this order of priorities ; - the first reply to IOAG could just indicate if and when we may accomodate their requirement : the unavailability of resources may in some cases lead to a different production planning that we should identify and report to IOAG - the associated action should then be for the interested CMC delegates to call for the necessary resources in their agency. When may a CESG analysis be made available ? Best regards Jean-Marc Soula CNES - DCT/OP/C-STA Advisor, GN Operations 18 Avenue Edouard Belin 31401 Toulouse Cedex 9 - France Tel.: +33 (0)5 61 2 74647 Fax.: +33 (0)5 61 2 73135 Email: Jean-Marc.Soula@cnes.fr -----Message d'origine----- De : cmc-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org [mailto:cmc-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org] De la part de Adrian J. Hooke Envoy? : mercredi 10 d?cembre 2008 19:08 ? : CCSDS Management Council; CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - ADs Objet : [CMC] Communiqu? from IOP-2 Please find the attached final Communiqu? that was issued at this week's second Inter-Operability Plenary (IOP-2) meeting in Geneva, which concluded today. Your attention is drawn to the implications of Resolution #5, referencing IOAG R12.9.1 which states the following: "R 12.9.1 The IOAG requests the CCSDS: to develop as a priority cross support transfer service specifications for: a) end-to-end CFDP service and b) end-to-end space packet service. to initiate the transition to an end-to-end networked communications architecture by : a) developing a standard for CCSDS encapsulation service; b) developing the DTN suite as standards c) developing a recommended practice for the deployment of the IP suite. to consolidate existing standards and standards in work at a modest resource level, with a priority to the following: a) space link monitoring cross-support transfer service standard b) guideline for the interagency routine file transfer service (best practices recommendation) c) time synchronization services" Is CCSDS comfortable with accepting these priorities? Best regards Adrian J. Hooke Chairman, CCSDS Engineering Steering Group (CESG) and CCSDS Technical Liaison to the IOAG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cmc/attachments/20081211/06c92a55/attachment.htm From peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov Thu Dec 11 15:26:16 2008 From: peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov (Peter Shames) Date: Thu Dec 11 15:23:48 2008 Subject: [CMC] =?iso-8859-1?q?Re=3A_=5BCESG=5D_Communiqu=E9_from_IOP-2?= In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20081210123759.029f9d68@mail.jpl.nasa.gov> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20081210123759.029f9d68@mail.jpl.nasa.gov> Message-ID: Adrian, et al, The IOP Communique is welcome and it does appear to provide some needed guidance for CCSDS and IOAG future efforts toward not just ground based cross support and interoperability, but also toward future space based services. The idea that all of the involved space agencies having relevant missions and interests would be invited to work together toward a Solar System Internetwork is a powerful one. The set of identified topics, drawn from the IOAG-12 list is a reasonable one, especially in light of the thrust toward interoperability in space. However, the priorities of these topics seem to need some adjustment given current agency plans, as best i understand them, and the list of things still needing to be done to complete key parts of the basic interoperability and cross support fabric. Furthermore, the implications of producing "end-to-end CFDP service, ... -to-end space packet service, and end-to-end networked communications architecture by ... developing the DTN suite as standards." seems problematic at best. No one has implemented and deployed an instance of the full end-to-end CFDP spec. There is no useful spec for what "end-to-end space packet service" is, it is just a data structure with some Green Book words about how it might be used to do this. And in any event, DTN seems already to have "stolen the march" on this if more than a couple of nodes are involved. After some thought on this, tempered by my experience with what we have been trying to do within the NASA networks to develop an integrated network service architecture, I offer the following. It is rather long, but please see if the logic makes sense. Suggested priorities: to develop as a priority cross support transfer service specifications for: a) simple relayed CFDP service b) guideline for interagency routine file transfer service (best practices recommendation) c) simple relayed space packet service to consolidate existing standards and standards in work at a modest resource level, with a priority to the following: a) space link monitoring cross-support transfer service standard b) space link radiometric cross-support transfer service standard c) space link service control cross-support transfer service standard d) AOS synchronous forward & return services with high throughout, low latency & jitter, insert zone, and link security e) service management re-structuring and extension, to include radiometric, D-DOR, files and space internetworking to initiate the transition to an end-to-end networked communications architecture by : a) developing a standard for CCSDS encapsulation service; b) developing a recommended practice for the deployment of the IP suite. c) developing the DTN suite as standards d) developing end-to-end space internetworking cross support transfer service standards and recommended practice e) developing end-to-end space network management cross support service standards (routing, network node management, store & forward data management, data accountability, etc) f) time synchronization services Here is my rationale for these revised priorities and work program contents: The work to define a true end-to-end CFDP and space packet service, including all of the ground terminus standardization and the on-board management, routing, and accountability standards is redundant with the work to develop the DTN suite of standards. While DTN is more complex in content than any simple CFDP or packet relaying approach, DTN has already shown itself capable of handling multi-node space internetworking. Investing any significant new effort now in defining and deploying multi-node, end-to-end CFDP or space packet services does not appear to be a prudent use of resources. Accordingly I would recommend that we just provide simple cross support service interfaces, SLE CLTU & RAF/RCF for packet services and a newly defined secure FTP interfaces (or some similar adopted protocol) for CFDP. For on-board use I would recommend that we only attempt to provide guidance for simple file and packet relaying scenarios, i.e. no more than one hop as in the current Mars configurations. This implies store and forward management of packets or files at the intermediate node, but is simple enough that it can be handled by "out of band" management or pre-agreement of the simplest of routing and data management approaches. This requires very little more standardization effort, but does require some operational agreements that can be guided by a new CCSDS Recommended Practice. All effort to support multi-node routing and space internetworking should be directed towards the DTN suite, more on that later. The cross support transfer standards that are needed include not just a monitor data standard (including agreements on standard terminology across the networks), but also require radiometric data transfer standards and "service control" standards. The service control is to permit users to modify service parameters (such as bit rate, mod index, emergency mode, etc) during service execution. It does not in any way imply direct equipment control, but does imply control over the service execution / production. There are also related requirements for new cross support "bit-stream" or "unframed telemetry", which can handle either flawed frames or encrypted data flows. This is a priority in some venues, but is not uniform. A cross support transfer service that adequately supports AOS synchronous forward services, along with associated high throughput, low jitter and latency, performance characteristics, and supporting VC merging, insert zone, and link layer security is a significant issue for NASA's exploration missions. No other agency has yet expressed an interest in this, but if advertised plans for ILN and joint Mars exploration are any indication, the need for such high rate forward and return services will soon be present for many agencies. There is a related set of topics that are being addressed in the next generation uplink working group, including forward coding and emergency comms. This also needs to move forward rapidly and for the same reasons. In order for all of these cross support services to be requested, configured and managed we need to have updates to the service management specifications. This will require the current service management spec to be re-structured, which the CSS / SM WG area has already started to explore. There is a related issue of just what, if anything, is needed in service management in order to configure and manage these simple file and packet relaying cross support services. There is the future question of what is needed to configure and manage any new space internetworking services, including DTN and TCP/IP. A standard service catalog framework and service level agreements are also required to be developed by some organization. It is not listed here, but was mentioned in the IOP Communique. Perhaps IOAG will do this, they clearly need to be engaged in the process. The IOAG agencies, or at least the operating arms of all agencies offering standard cross supported space communications services, need to be the ones who populate and maintain the service catalogs and operate the service delivery interfaces. Some organization still need to provide the catalog and SLE templates with agreed terminology and format. In the realm of space internetworking we can expect the IOAG SISG / SIAG to produce a high level view of what is expected in terms of interoperable space internetworking. It will be the role of CCSDS to actually develop the necessary standards. These have to include not only the space comm protocols but also the architecture for how these are to be delivered as services on the ground and to be operated as service nodes in space. I've called this DTN and IP functionality "space internetworking" in the belief that we are likely to want to construct some sort of hybrid space internetworking framework, that uses IP in confined localities where it makes sense, but uses DTN to produce the "long haul" internetworking fabric. This implies a requirement for IP "on-ramps" and "off-ramps", for development of not just the DTN networking protocols, but also all of the ancillary stuff, as in the Internet, that does routing, routing table management, routing boundary hand-offs, and network operations management, monitoring and control. We always say "TCP/IP" and ignore the other 90% of the Internet RFCs that are about getting all of this other stuff to work. Similarly we need to determine how we, as a set of agencies that are challenged to develop a "Solar System Internetwork (SSI)" will actually configure, manage, operate and deliver these services. We now expect to depend upon SLE and cross support transfer services, and service management, to plan, schedule, configure and establish the basic space links between ground assets and space assets. This implies a comm architecture that has always had a control center(s) as part of the path from end users to space and vice-versa. These may be mission control centers, but are certainly network control centers. If we are doing "space internetworking" is this still the case or do we move toward some sort of routed architecture, much like the Internet, where users think of this communications path a "just being there, everywhere". Terrestrially we have a very rich fabric of communications assets that let's us just hop from wired connections, to WiFi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wifi ), to 3G / HSPDA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSDPA) or future WiMAX (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WiMAX ), without a thought. However, it is hard to envisage even in the 2025 time frame that we would have anything like that level of connectivity at the Moon, let alone Mars. Hence it is easy to assume that we will still need to staple up comm circuits and the basic physical links, just like we will still need to do pointing, scheduling, transmitter / receiver & data handling equipment configuration, etc. We might define some more automated data rate change signaling and handling mechanisms, and we will surely need to define multiple access methods at the link layer, and probably some sort of universal demand access scheme, but none of this looks a lot like WiFi or WiMAX. That does not mean, however, that there won't be a drive toward using these existing technologies in situ, at the edges, or in local enclaves. How does all of this work together and do we have any sort of shared vision of that? Probably of more importance from a technical and deployment point of view is just what the router infrastructure looks like that will make all of this happen? Will there be IP / WiMAX routers at some edge nodes that funnel / tunnel IP traffic into DTN bundles? Will there be DTN routers at all of our ground stations that directly accept DTN bundles from any authenticated user on the Internet? How is access to these long haul space links managed? How would we deal with denial of service (DOS) attacks (and others) on our space comm assets? Does SLE and SM still play a role in managing, configuring, and delivering data across the space links? Where is the end of the space link, in a control center or at the ground station? Is the DTN router fabric exposed to the broad Internet at some number of well known points or are there DTN routers deployed at all of the critical end points where use of this service is required? And most important for CCSDS, what are the interoperability and cross support specifications for whatever we eventually envision that will let pieces of this be built by different agencies (ground elements and space elements) and still have it all interoperate? I think this is all very important to figure out, and it does need to be a priority for IOAG and CCSDS, but I strongly question whether it should take precedence over getting those basic bread and butter comm items done so that we take the next steps toward interoperable ground systems and simple relay operations using files and packets. Hence my suggested priorities and expanded content to the list. My more than two cents. Aren't you glad you asked? How do we feed any results of this CCSDS prioritization discussion back into the IOAG, in response to the IOP-2 Resolution 5 that "the IOAG should prioritize the requirements relevant to space communications interoperability and cross-support". Cheers, Peter On 10 Dec 2008, at 10:08 AM, Adrian J. Hooke wrote: > Please find the attached final Communiqu? that was issued at this > week's second Inter-Operability Plenary (IOP-2) meeting in Geneva, > which concluded today. > > Your attention is drawn to the implications of Resolution #5, > referencing IOAG R12.9.1 which states the following: > > "R 12.9.1 The IOAG requests the CCSDS: > to develop as a priority cross support transfer > service specifications for: > a) end-to-end CFDP service and > b) end-to-end space packet service. > to initiate the transition to an end-to-end > networked communications architecture by : > a) developing a standard for CCSDS > encapsulation service; > b) developing the DTN suite as standards > c) developing a recommended practice for the > deployment of the IP suite. > to consolidate existing standards and standards > in work at a modest resource level, with a priority to the following: > a) space link monitoring cross-support transfer > service standard > b) guideline for the interagency routine file > transfer service (best practices recommendation) > c) time synchronization services" > > Is CCSDS comfortable with accepting these priorities? > > Best regards > Adrian J. Hooke > Chairman, CCSDS Engineering Steering Group (CESG) and > CCSDS Technical Liaison to the IOAG > _______________________________________________________ Peter Shames Manager - JPL Data Systems Standards Program InterPlanetary Network Directorate Jet Propulsion Laboratory, MS 301-230 California Institute of Technology Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Telephone: +1 818 354-5740, Fax: +1 818 393-0028 Internet: Peter.Shames@jpl.nasa.gov ________________________________________________________ "We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive at where we started, and know the place for the first time" T .S. Eliot -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cmc/attachments/20081211/26e600b2/attachment-0001.htm From tomg at aiaa.org Sat Dec 13 12:46:47 2008 From: tomg at aiaa.org (CCSDS Secretariat) Date: Sat Dec 13 12:12:28 2008 Subject: [CMC] Results of CMC E-Poll Closing December 12, 2008 Message-ID: CMC E-Poll Identifier: CMC-P-2008-11-002 Authorization to Release Pink Sheets to TM Space Data Link Protocol Results of CMC poll beginning 20 November 2008 and ending 12 December 2008: ADOPT: 11 (100%) (ASI, BNSC, CNES, CNSA, CSA, DLR, ESA, FSA, INPE, JAXA, NASA) ADOPT PROVISIONALLY: 0 (0%) REJECT: 0 (0%) REJECT WITH COMMENTS: 0 (0%) Results are based on responses from 11 out of 11 members (100%). All Areas responded to this question. Secretariat Interpretation of Results: Adopted Resulting CMC Resolution: CMC-R-2008-12-002 Inferred Secretariat Action: Release Review Document * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CMC E-Poll Identifier: CMC-P-2008-11-003 Authorization to Release Pink Sheets to TC Space Data Link Protocol Results of CMC poll beginning 20 November 2008 and ending 12 December 2008: ADOPT: 11 (100%) (ASI, BNSC, CNES, CNSA, CSA, DLR, ESA, FSA, INPE, JAXA, NASA) ADOPT PROVISIONALLY: 0 (0%) REJECT: 0 (0%) REJECT WITH COMMENTS: 0 (0%) Results are based on responses from 11 out of 11 members (100%). All Areas responded to this question. Secretariat Interpretation of Results: Adopted Resulting CMC Resolution: CMC-R-2008-12-003 Inferred Secretariat Action: Release Review Document * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CMC E-Poll Identifier: CMC-P-2008-11-004 Authorization to Release Pink Sheets to AOS Space Data Link Protocol Results of CMC poll beginning 20 November 2008 and ending 12 December 2008: ADOPT: 11 (100%) (ASI, BNSC, CNES, CNSA, CSA, DLR, ESA, FSA, INPE, JAXA, NASA) ADOPT PROVISIONALLY: 0 (0%) REJECT: 0 (0%) REJECT WITH COMMENTS: 0 (0%) Results are based on responses from 11 out of 11 members (100%). All Areas responded to this question. Secretariat Interpretation of Results: Adopted Resulting CMC Resolution: CMC-R-2008-12-004 Inferred Secretariat Action: Release Review Document * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From CraigD at aiaa.org Tue Dec 16 17:57:45 2008 From: CraigD at aiaa.org (Craig Day) Date: Tue Dec 16 17:24:51 2008 Subject: [CMC] Spring 2009 Meeting Letters of Invitation Message-ID: Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2472 bytes Desc: image.jpg Url : http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cmc/attachments/20081216/a76101fe/image.jpg From Mike.Kearney at nasa.gov Fri Dec 19 10:45:08 2008 From: Mike.Kearney at nasa.gov (Kearney, Mike W. (MSFC-EO01)) Date: Fri Dec 19 10:10:59 2008 Subject: [CMC] CMC Process question concerning document project control In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5949C82F81D0794BBF9FF07DE2D359E301605963@NDMSEVS33B.ndc.nasa.gov> Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 2472 bytes Desc: image001.jpg Url : http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cmc/attachments/20081219/7502c705/attachment-0001.jpe From lauras at aiaa.org Fri Dec 19 13:22:35 2008 From: lauras at aiaa.org (Laura Stafford) Date: Fri Dec 19 12:48:41 2008 Subject: [CMC] November 2008 - CCSDS.org Usage Report, CCSDS Mailman SPAM Report, and CCSDS Publications Report In-Reply-To: <4925DC70.8020504@aiaa.org> References: <458090FC.6020700@aiaa.org> <45DCCBDA.5080600@aiaa.org> <46016EFE.3010701@aiaa.org> <462908DC.2090903@aiaa.org> <4651FDE0.6060200@aiaa.org> <468D497B.4000701@aiaa.org> <46CB047C.4040006@aiaa.org> <46F169A0.7070404@aiaa.org> <47191A09.20406@aiaa.org> <473A0B88.8040904@aiaa.org> <476BFEEB.7090901@aiaa.org> <47952E48.6020807@aiaa.org> <47AF7A4E.9080409@aiaa.org> <47E15ECF.7040603@aiaa.org> <480CB910.3030602@aiaa.org> <48319175.6040506@aiaa.org> <484953AC.2060403@aiaa.org> <487277C7.5000907@aiaa.org> <48BDA2A1.4000000@aiaa.org> <48FF40AC.5020508@aiaa.org> <4925DC70.8020504@aiaa.org> Message-ID: <494BE66B.2060402@aiaa.org> Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CCSDS Website Usage Report - November 2008.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 66879 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cmc/attachments/20081219/757a9e6c/CCSDSWebsiteUsageReport-November2008-0001.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CCSDS Mailman Summary SPAM Report - November 2008.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 64774 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cmc/attachments/20081219/757a9e6c/CCSDSMailmanSummarySPAMReport-November2008-0001.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CCSDS Publications Usage Report - November 2008.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 64860 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cmc/attachments/20081219/757a9e6c/CCSDSPublicationsUsageReport-November2008-0001.pdf From CraigD at aiaa.org Mon Dec 22 16:34:29 2008 From: CraigD at aiaa.org (Craig Day) Date: Mon Dec 22 16:00:24 2008 Subject: [CMC] FW: Spring 2009 Meeting Letters of Invitation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2472 bytes Desc: image.jpg Url : http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cmc/attachments/20081222/6b91ac9f/image.jpg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2472 bytes Desc: image.jpg Url : http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cmc/attachments/20081222/6b91ac9f/image-0001.jpg From tomg at aiaa.org Wed Dec 31 08:50:39 2008 From: tomg at aiaa.org (CCSDS Secretariat) Date: Wed Dec 31 08:16:45 2008 Subject: [CMC] Results of CMC E-Polls Closing December 30, 2008 Message-ID: CMC E-Poll Identifier: CMC-P-2008-12-001 Authorization to Release Pink Sheets to SLE RAF Service Specification Results of CMC poll beginning 11 December 2008 and ending 30 December 2008: ADOPT: 8 (100%) (ASI, BNSC, CNES, CSA, DLR, ESA, INPE, JAXA) ADOPT PROVISIONALLY: 0 (0%) REJECT: 0 (0%) REJECT WITH COMMENTS: 0 (0%) Results are based on responses from 8 out of 11 members (72.73%). No response was received from the following Agencies: CNSA FSA NASA Secretariat Interpretation of Results: Adopted Resulting CMC Resolution: CMC-R-2008-12-005 Inferred Secretariat Action: Release Review Document * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CMC E-Poll Identifier: CMC-P-2008-12-002 Authorization to Release Pink Sheets to SLE RCF Service Specification Results of CMC poll beginning 11 December 2008 and ending 30 December 2008: ADOPT: 8 (100%) (ASI, BNSC, CNES, CSA, DLR, ESA, INPE, JAXA) ADOPT PROVISIONALLY: 0 (0%) REJECT: 0 (0%) REJECT WITH COMMENTS: 0 (0%) Results are based on responses from 8 out of 11 members (72.73%). No response was received from the following Agencies: CNSA FSA NASA Secretariat Interpretation of Results: Adopted Resulting CMC Resolution: CMC-R-2008-12-006 Inferred Secretariat Action: Release Review Document * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CMC E-Poll Identifier: CMC-P-2008-12-003 Authorization to Release Pink Sheets to SLE ROCF Service Specification Results of CMC poll beginning 11 December 2008 and ending 30 December 2008: ADOPT: 8 (100%) (ASI, BNSC, CNES, CSA, DLR, ESA, INPE, JAXA) ADOPT PROVISIONALLY: 0 (0%) REJECT: 0 (0%) REJECT WITH COMMENTS: 0 (0%) Results are based on responses from 8 out of 11 members (72.73%). No response was received from the following Agencies: CNSA FSA NASA Secretariat Interpretation of Results: Adopted Resulting CMC Resolution: CMC-R-2008-12-007 Inferred Secretariat Action: Release Review Document * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CMC E-Poll Identifier: CMC-P-2008-12-004 Authorization to Release Pink Sheets to SLE FCTLU Service Specification Results of CMC poll beginning 11 December 2008 and ending 30 December 2008: ADOPT: 8 (100%) (ASI, BNSC, CNES, CSA, DLR, ESA, INPE, JAXA) ADOPT PROVISIONALLY: 0 (0%) REJECT: 0 (0%) REJECT WITH COMMENTS: 0 (0%) Results are based on responses from 8 out of 11 members (72.73%). No response was received from the following Agencies: CNSA FSA NASA Secretariat Interpretation of Results: Adopted Resulting CMC Resolution: CMC-R-2008-12-008 Inferred Secretariat Action: Release Review Document * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CMC E-Poll Identifier: CMC-P-2008-12-005 Authorization to Release Pink Sheets to SLE FSP Service Specification Results of CMC poll beginning 11 December 2008 and ending 30 December 2008: ADOPT: 8 (100%) (ASI, BNSC, CNES, CSA, DLR, ESA, INPE, JAXA) ADOPT PROVISIONALLY: 0 (0%) REJECT: 0 (0%) REJECT WITH COMMENTS: 0 (0%) Results are based on responses from 8 out of 11 members (72.73%). No response was received from the following Agencies: CNSA FSA NASA Secretariat Interpretation of Results: Adopted Resulting CMC Resolution: CMC-R-2008-12-009 Inferred Secretariat Action: Release Review Document * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *