<span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">Hi,</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">I don't see a
major issue of having LTPv1 and LTPv2 (or LTP+ ?) as Blue Books for a longer
period of time as they are 'only' link layer protocols and these
links will have to be designed for interoperability anyway (frequencies,
coding & modulation, data link layer protocol, ...). Furthermore, we
may have really separate domains with optical / high-rate RF Earth observation
downlinks and Gateway/LunaNet/Moonlight. Of course, in the long term, we
should converge to a single protocol.</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">Also, I would
prefer to have a bit longer time frame for the LTP+ definition. ESA will
kick-off a dedicated activity for the definition and prototyping (including
hardware implementation) very soon but it will take until end of 2022 to
finish. This would give us also a reference implementation for the interoperability
testing.</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">Regards,</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">Felix</span>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:sans-serif">From:
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:sans-serif">"Torgerson,
J. Leigh\(US 332C\) via SIS-DTN" <sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org></span>
<br><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:sans-serif">To:
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:sans-serif">"Shames,
Peter M (US 312B)" <peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov>, "Vint
Cerf" <vint@google.com>, "Dr. Keith L Scott" <kscott@mitre.org></span>
<br><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:sans-serif">Cc:
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:sans-serif">"sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org"
<sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org>, "Gifford, Kevin" <kevin.gifford@colorado.edu></span>
<br><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:sans-serif">Date:
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:sans-serif">12/10/2021
23:34</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:sans-serif">Subject:
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:sans-serif">Re:
[Sis-dtn] [EXTERNAL] Re: [EXT] RE: LTP vs LTPv2</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:sans-serif">Sent
by: </span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:sans-serif">"SIS-DTN"
<sis-dtn-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org></span>
<br>
<hr noshade>
<br>
<br>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Fair
enough – I’m not too worried about BPv6 one way or another – users are
not limited to several dozen ISS payloads, a few cubesats that are due
to launch next year, and KPLO. Everyone now is working on using BPv7, and
there aren’t going to be any pink sheets to the BPv6 book that I foresee..
</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">I
do believe LTPv1 and LTPv2 should be two separate books, unless CCSDS thinks
it is OK to deprecate protocols that are in active use by missions and
in continued support by the DSN. LTPv1 is a different protocol from LTPv2;
it isn’t merely an older version of the same protocol. Not backwards compatible,
not just an enhanced version, but a new beast. Therefore we need a new
book that can co-exist with LTPv1 until such time as no one is using LTPv1.
Once LTPv2 is practically ready for use in actual missions, we can
debate when (or whether) to silverize LTPv1’s book.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Leigh</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri"><b>From:
</b>"Shames, Peter M (US 312B)" <peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov><b><br>
Date: </b>Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 2:03 PM<b><br>
To: </b>"Torgerson, Jordan L (332M)" <jordan.l.torgerson@jpl.nasa.gov>,
Vint Cerf <vint@google.com>, "Scott, Keith L." <kscott@mitre.org><b><br>
Cc: </b>"sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org" <sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org>,
"Gifford, Kevin" <kevin.gifford@colorado.edu><b><br>
Subject: </b>Re: [Sis-dtn] [EXTERNAL] Re: [EXT] RE: LTP vs LTPv2</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Hey
Leigh,</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">I
never said “make BPv6 (or LTPv1) Silver before the new BB exist”. Never
did. Never would.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">I
did say that I thought that <b><i>once</i></b> the new versions are published
that then the old books should be “silverized”. This is the way
that CCSDS handles such matters. Either that or we name them as two
separate protocols with two separate numbers. That does not remove
them, they are still available. It does deprecate them. This
is a consequence of both of these protocol version updates being designed
to not be backward compatible.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">We
(CCSDS, IETF, and the DTN community) have made all of our lives more complicated
by pushing these specs while they were still maturing. We all want
DTN to succeed, but making significant protocol changes this early in the
game is the cause of the problem and, as you have clearly pointed out,
this is going to push complexity into deployments for some time into the
future.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">That’s
the reality. Now let’s deal with it as best we can until we can
get to some more stable point.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Peter</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri"><b>From:
</b>Leigh Torgerson <jordan.l.torgerson@jpl.nasa.gov><b><br>
Date: </b>Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 10:51 AM<b><br>
To: </b>Peter Shames <peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov>, Vint Cerf <vint@google.com>,
Keith Scott <kscott@mitre.org><b><br>
Cc: </b>"sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org" <sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org>,
"Gifford, Kevin" <kevin.gifford@colorado.edu><b><br>
Subject: </b>Re: [Sis-dtn] [EXTERNAL] Re: [EXT] RE: LTP vs LTPv2</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">As
I have mentioned before, I don’t have a problem with making the BPv6 book
a “silver book” - other than existing missions that use it, no
new missions are contemplating bpv6 now, and no new features will be added
to ION v3.7.x versions (bpv6), just bug fixes as they come up.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">However,
I strongly disagree with making the ltpv1 spec “silver” at this time.
</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">There
are currently bpv7 (ION 4.1) / ltpv1 systems being developed for flight
missions, and assuming that the promised IETF spec for bpv7 is out soon
(something we’ve been promised for months now), contracts may have to
be let soon by NASA that specify BPv7/LTPv1.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">What
CCSDS never considers is the fact that from the time a new CCSDS spec hits
the street until the DSN is funded to implement, test and be ready to offer
that new protocol as a service, it’s $millions and years before that happens.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">CCSDS
and the DTN program already shot DTN in the kneecaps by rushing in to BPv7
right at the time NASA was starting to let contracts for vendors and get
the DSN to support DTN – no specs for BPv7 meant no way to specify DTN
but to lamely describe “features” like “store and forward”, so vendors
were left to either reinvent DTN by some software over UDP/IP/CCSDS telemetry
or to look at cFS or ION with bpv6/ltpv1. CCSDS couldn’t even agree that
a spec for BSSP was necessary, so when we had to support that for the KPLO
mission, we couldn’t even put it in the ICD properly (citing “man pages”
isn’t an approved way to write an ICD).. So as of today, contracts
that would come out in the next year or so for specifying DTN use in the
2024-25 timeframe (and near-term RFIs for Marsnet) will have to specify
BPv7 (assuming IETF comes through soon) and LTPv1.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Then
NASA will have to fund the DSN to incorporate ION v4.x.x to have a BPv7
and LTPv1 capability. </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Nip
ltpv1 in the bud? Here’s what it is going to take to get ltpv2 in
place and ready to support missions that are supported by the DSN:</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">The
steps:</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">1.
</span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Define
the spec and at least get a Redbook out –</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">2.
</span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Pay
at least two independent groups to write two LTPv2 implementations for
the purpose of interoperability testing to validate the spec. (standard
CCSDS practice except when no one else cares, as was the case with SCPS)</span></p>
<ul>
<li><span style=" font-size:11pt;color:#4181c0;font-family:Calibri">One
implementation should be ION, as that is what will go into the DSN – and
that’s not funded at present.</span></ul><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">3.
</span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Test
these reference implementation to certify that the new specification is
correct, and then commence the process of going from Redbook to Bluebook.</span>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">4.
</span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Make
these “reference implementations” available to DTN implementors and the
DTN ION Hardening / DSN implementation test teams at JPL to </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">a.
</span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Write
the official ION implementation of LTPv2 for the DSN</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">b.
</span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Validate
the performance, memory management, set-up methods and efficiency of the
new LTPv2, at least for DSN RF downlink speeds. (Optical comm implementations
at Table Mountain, etc is a whole ‘nother discussion)</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">5.
</span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Fund
the DSN, NSN, and maybe MSU, to install, test and operate LTPv2 so the
ground infrastructure can support it.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">6.
</span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Then
we will be in a position to encourage use of LTPv2, assist any early-stage
vendors to switch over to LTPv2, and come up with cost-benefits analyses
that will show NASA why it is worth paying vendors or (by then) flight
missions to switch over to LTPv2, do all the interoperability testing with
NSN and DSN, etc.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">If
CCSDS and SCaN can come up with the budget and timetable that would let
steps 1-6 be accomplished in the next 12-24 months, then maybe killing
ltpv1 now would be OK. But I also might as well ask for a pony for Christmas.
</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">On
the other hand, if you just want to insure that DTN will not be used in
Lunanet until 2030, then go ahead and deprecate ltpv1 now, making it unlikely
any vendor in the next 3-4 years will implement ltp at all (no spec, no
DSN support, no sale. I know you can still cite a silver book in a contract,
but knowing that ltpv1 is a deprecated standard means no one would be eager
to implement it.)</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">The
DSN is going to have to support 3 versions of DTN as it stands now – BPv6/ltpv1,
BPv7/ltpv1 and BPv7/ltp2, and two of the three are not funded for infusion
any time soon. (and ION development isn’t funded yet for ltpv2 compatibility.)
No one has funded the implementation of USLP in the DSN yet either, by
the way, and no reference implementations have been made available to commercial
telemetry vendors.. I hold that up as yet another case where CCSDS specs
come out years and years before anyone in the community is ready to use
them in an end-to-end system.. (Want to discuss how long it took between
the time I was NASA rapporteur for “protocol-X” (circa 1997?), which
became CFDP, and the time when some missions actually used it?) </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">I
have no faith that steps 1-6 above can be completed in time to get the
Lunar missions on the bandwagon to use BPv7 over a “high speed” LTP version
not many spacecraft would even need. (I believe that LTPv2 could
well serve for specialized optical comm missions that needed the high speed
FPGA implementations, and LTPv1 could continue to serve most RF missions.)</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">We
can move in the direction of BPv7/LTPv2 certainly, but don’t eliminate
the CCSDS Bluebook for LTPv1 until there are specs for BPv7 and LTPv2 that
can be used by NASA in contracts (or by DSN in ICDs).</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Leigh</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Times New Roman"><b>J.
Leigh Torgerson</b></span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Times New Roman">Space
Communications Networking Architect</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Times New Roman">Protocol
Technology Lab Manager </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Times New Roman">Communications
Architectures & Research (332)</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Times New Roman"><b>Jet
Propulsion Laboratory</b></span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Times New Roman"><b>4800
Oak Grove Drive M/S: 238-420</b></span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Times New Roman"><b>Pasadena,
CA 91109</b></span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Times New Roman">Office:
(818) 393-0695</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Times New Roman">Email:
</span><a href=mailto:ltorgerson@jpl.nasa.gov><span style=" font-size:12pt;color:#0082bf;font-family:Times New Roman"><u>ltorgerson@jpl.nasa.gov</u></span></a></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Times New Roman"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri"><b>From:
</b>SIS-DTN <sis-dtn-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org> on behalf of "Shames,
Peter M (US 312B) via SIS-DTN" <sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org><b><br>
Reply-To: </b>"Shames, Peter M (US 312B)" <peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov><b><br>
Date: </b>Monday, October 11, 2021 at 5:55 PM<b><br>
To: </b>Vint Cerf <vint@google.com>, "Scott, Keith L."
<kscott@mitre.org><b><br>
Cc: </b>"sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org" <sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org>,
"Gifford, Kevin" <kevin.gifford@colorado.edu><b><br>
Subject: </b>Re: [Sis-dtn] [EXTERNAL] Re: [EXT] RE: LTP vs LTPv2</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Vint
and Keith,</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Given
that we are really just getting started with building and deploying DTN
and LTP based systems in space in any broad sense I think we are better
off silverizing these now and nipping in the bud any expansion of these
older protocols we are trying to leave behind.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">With
IPv4 vs IPv6 there was already a major deployment of IPv4 such that it
could not easily be abandoned. In our case I think LTPv1 and BPv6
are more like IPv1, v2, and v3. They must have existed along the
way to IPv4, but they are now lost to the dusts of time. In the RFC
Editor files there is not even a mention of these, but I assume that they
existed at some point.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">I
worry with our current relatively small community that we will just start
to build in more complexity if we perpetuate both versions of both of these
key protocols. </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Regards,
Peter</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri"><b>From:
</b>Vint Cerf <vint@google.com><b><br>
Date: </b>Monday, October 11, 2021 at 7:18 AM<b><br>
To: </b>Keith Scott <KSCOTT@mitre.org><b><br>
Cc: </b>"Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de" <tomaso.decola@dlr.de>,
Peter Shames <peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov>, "sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org"
<sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org>, "Gifford, Kevin" <Kevin.Gifford@colorado.edu><b><br>
Subject: </b>Re: [Sis-dtn] [EXTERNAL] Re: [EXT] RE: LTP vs LTPv2</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">i
think Keith and Leigh have correctly characterized the situation. I would
stick with both as valid but incompatible. CF: IPv4 and IPv6' </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">v</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">On
Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 10:12 AM Dr. Keith L Scott <</span><a href=mailto:kscott@mitre.org><span style=" font-size:11pt;color:blue;font-family:Calibri"><u>kscott@mitre.org</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">>
wrote:</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Peter,</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">I
think the real issue at hand is whether or not to maintain the LTPv1 spec
as Blue once LTPv2 is published. </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">My
interpretation of Leigh’s argument is that vendors are currently implementing
to LTPv1 (and the current BPv6-based BP for CCSDS Book) and that deprecating
those specs in favor of new, non-backward-compatible ones would be looked
upon unfavorably.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">
v/r,</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">
--keith</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:240px"><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri"><b>From:
</b></span><a href=mailto:Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de target=_blank><span style=" font-size:12pt;color:blue;font-family:Calibri"><u>Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri">
<</span><a href=mailto:Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de target=_blank><span style=" font-size:12pt;color:blue;font-family:Calibri"><u>Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri">><b><br>
Date: </b>Monday, October 11, 2021 at 3:11 AM<b><br>
To: </b></span><a href=mailto:peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov target=_blank><span style=" font-size:12pt;color:blue;font-family:Calibri"><u>peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri">
<</span><a href=mailto:peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov target=_blank><span style=" font-size:12pt;color:blue;font-family:Calibri"><u>peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri">><b><br>
Cc: </b>Dr. Keith L Scott <</span><a href=mailto:kscott@mitre.org target=_blank><span style=" font-size:12pt;color:blue;font-family:Calibri"><u>kscott@mitre.org</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri">>,
Gifford, Kevin <</span><a href=mailto:kevin.gifford@colorado.edu target=_blank><span style=" font-size:12pt;color:blue;font-family:Calibri"><u>kevin.gifford@colorado.edu</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri">>,
</span><a href=mailto:marc.sanchez.net@jpl.nasa.gov target=_blank><span style=" font-size:12pt;color:blue;font-family:Calibri"><u>marc.sanchez.net@jpl.nasa.gov</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri">
<</span><a href=mailto:marc.sanchez.net@jpl.nasa.gov target=_blank><span style=" font-size:12pt;color:blue;font-family:Calibri"><u>marc.sanchez.net@jpl.nasa.gov</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri">>,
</span><a href="mailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org" target=_blank><span style=" font-size:12pt;color:blue;font-family:Calibri"><u>sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri">
<</span><a href="mailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org" target=_blank><span style=" font-size:12pt;color:blue;font-family:Calibri"><u>sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri">><b><br>
Subject: </b>RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: [EXT] RE: LTP vs LTPv2</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Dear
Peter,</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Thank
you for your kind support and availability for helping us in finding a
suitable solution. </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Indeed
the two options you have mentioned are also those we have put on the table
as possible solutions, although both of them show pros and cons and therefore
compromise and agreement/consensus between the parties will have to be
reached. This discussion will keep on going during the next DTN telco as
well as the official CCSDS DTN WG Fall meetings in order to reach soon
an agreed approach as also mentioned by Keith in a previous e-mail. In
case no solution will be agreed, then I’ll certainly bring this point
in the SIS area summary at the CESG meeting in November in order to find
a way out for this impasse. Obviously, I’ll certainly count on your and
other CESG colleagues suggestions to move forward and more importantly
to avoid any postponed decision that would be detrimental to the activities
of the DTN WG.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Best
Regards</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Tomaso</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"><b>From:</b>
Shames, Peter M (US 312B) <</span><a href=mailto:peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov target=_blank><span style=" font-size:11pt;color:blue;font-family:Calibri"><u>peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">>
<b><br>
Sent:</b> Samstag, 9. Oktober 2021 01:26<b><br>
To:</b> Kevin K Gifford <</span><a href=mailto:kevin.gifford@colorado.edu target=_blank><span style=" font-size:11pt;color:blue;font-family:Calibri"><u>kevin.gifford@colorado.edu</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">>;
Dr. Keith L Scott <</span><a href=mailto:kscott@mitre.org target=_blank><span style=" font-size:11pt;color:blue;font-family:Calibri"><u>kscott@mitre.org</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">>;
Cola, Tomaso de <</span><a href=mailto:Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de target=_blank><span style=" font-size:11pt;color:blue;font-family:Calibri"><u>Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">>;
Sanchez Net, Marc (US 332H) <</span><a href=mailto:marc.sanchez.net@jpl.nasa.gov target=_blank><span style=" font-size:11pt;color:blue;font-family:Calibri"><u>marc.sanchez.net@jpl.nasa.gov</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">><b><br>
Cc:</b> </span><a href="mailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org" target=_blank><span style=" font-size:11pt;color:blue;font-family:Calibri"><u>sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"><b><br>
Subject:</b> Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [EXT] RE: LTP vs LTPv2</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Guys,</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">As
a long term member of the CESG I do agree that you can kick it “upstairs”
to the CESG and have, I believe, a hope of getting a sensible response
(most of the time). Heck, we are human and therefore fallible.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">From
my own point of view I recommend doing two things:</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;■á¯
©■@■─■ my own point of view I recommend doing two things:an kick it “upstairs”
to the CESG and have, I believe, a hope of gett┘}■,£¯
■£¯
"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">1.
</span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">As
I understand it, they are different protocols, hence not “backward compatible”.
Using the “version” option, including, in this case, adopting some
explicit name extension like LTPv2 makes the most sense to me. The
rationale for that is that what you plan to produce is not backward compatible
with v1. In other words, there is no way to configure V2, without
the new options, and still have a v1 implementation accept it. </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;■á¯
ῄ■Ï■─■As
I understand it, they are different protocols, hence not “backward compatible”.
Using the “version” option, including, in this case, adopting some
e</span>"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">2.
</span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Silverize
the v1 book. This is normally done when a new protocol version is
created. The old silver book will still be available and it may be
referenced with its (new) silver name and number. This has happened
before with other specs. It is not unusual for some mission to nail
their interface to some specific version of a document, even, in some cases,
a Red Book (which is really dangerous since they are likely to change).
</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">If
you want to discuss this further please let me know. And it you do
decide to send it to the CESG you now know where I stand, and why. Of
course, if any of my assumptions are flawed I am happy to be corrected.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Cheers,
Peter</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri"><b>From:
</b>Kevin K Gifford <</span><a href=mailto:kevin.gifford@colorado.edu target=_blank><span style=" font-size:12pt;color:blue;font-family:Calibri"><u>kevin.gifford@colorado.edu</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri">><b><br>
Date: </b>Friday, October 8, 2021 at 11:58 AM<b><br>
To: </b>Keith Scott <</span><a href=mailto:kscott@mitre.org target=_blank><span style=" font-size:12pt;color:blue;font-family:Calibri"><u>kscott@mitre.org</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri">>,
"</span><a href=mailto:Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de target=_blank><span style=" font-size:12pt;color:blue;font-family:Calibri"><u>Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri">"
<</span><a href=mailto:Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de target=_blank><span style=" font-size:12pt;color:blue;font-family:Calibri"><u>Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri">>,
Marc Sanchez Net <</span><a href=mailto:marc.sanchez.net@jpl.nasa.gov target=_blank><span style=" font-size:12pt;color:blue;font-family:Calibri"><u>marc.sanchez.net@jpl.nasa.gov</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri">><b><br>
Cc: </b>"</span><a href="mailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org" target=_blank><span style=" font-size:12pt;color:blue;font-family:Calibri"><u>sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri">"
<</span><a href="mailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org" target=_blank><span style=" font-size:12pt;color:blue;font-family:Calibri"><u>sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri">>,
Peter Shames <</span><a href=mailto:peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov target=_blank><span style=" font-size:12pt;color:blue;font-family:Calibri"><u>peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri">>,
Kevin K Gifford <</span><a href=mailto:kevin.gifford@colorado.edu target=_blank><span style=" font-size:12pt;color:blue;font-family:Calibri"><u>kevin.gifford@colorado.edu</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri">><b><br>
Subject: </b>[EXTERNAL] Re: [EXT] RE: LTP vs LTPv2</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri">Hi
SIS-DTN - </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri">FWIW,
I want to emphasize that the CESG does a great job in this regard (fixing
issues that arise in WGs or inter-WG conflicts or inter-agency conflicts).</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri">--
Keith was a member of the CESG for several years and understands this vital
role that the CESG plays in issues such as this</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri">Thus,
my <b>two cents worth</b> is await CESG advice as well as Keith already
stated (I wanted to maybe ease any queasiness in regard to CESG involvement/inputs).</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri">Thanks.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri">Kevin</span></p>
<div align=center>
<hr></div>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"><b>From:</b>
SIS-DTN <</span><a href="mailto:sis-dtn-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org" target=_blank><span style=" font-size:11pt;color:blue;font-family:Calibri"><u>sis-dtn-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">>
on behalf of Dr. Keith L Scott <</span><a href=mailto:kscott@mitre.org target=_blank><span style=" font-size:11pt;color:blue;font-family:Calibri"><u>kscott@mitre.org</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">><b><br>
Sent:</b> Friday, October 8, 2021 12:49 PM<b><br>
To:</b> </span><a href=mailto:Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de target=_blank><span style=" font-size:11pt;color:blue;font-family:Calibri"><u>Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">
<</span><a href=mailto:Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de target=_blank><span style=" font-size:11pt;color:blue;font-family:Calibri"><u>Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">>;
</span><a href=mailto:marc.sanchez.net@jpl.nasa.gov target=_blank><span style=" font-size:11pt;color:blue;font-family:Calibri"><u>marc.sanchez.net@jpl.nasa.gov</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">
<</span><a href=mailto:marc.sanchez.net@jpl.nasa.gov target=_blank><span style=" font-size:11pt;color:blue;font-family:Calibri"><u>marc.sanchez.net@jpl.nasa.gov</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">><b><br>
Cc:</b> </span><a href="mailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org" target=_blank><span style=" font-size:11pt;color:blue;font-family:Calibri"><u>sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">
<</span><a href="mailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org" target=_blank><span style=" font-size:11pt;color:blue;font-family:Calibri"><u>sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">><b><br>
Subject:</b> Re: [Sis-dtn] [EXT] RE: LTP vs LTPv2 </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<br><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">OK fine, if the CESG
decides to not rule on it, great, we’ll make a decision in the WG and
they can live with it (and we can certainly discuss it SOME in the WG;
don’t want to put too much time into it until the CESG is at least given
a chance to get us out of this).</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span>
<br><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">
--keith</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span>
<p style=";margin-Bottom:240pt"><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri"><b>From:
</b></span><a href=mailto:Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de target=_blank><span style=" font-size:12pt;color:blue;font-family:Calibri"><u>Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri">
<</span><a href=mailto:Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de target=_blank><span style=" font-size:12pt;color:blue;font-family:Calibri"><u>Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri">><b><br>
Date: </b>Friday, October 8, 2021 at 10:04 AM<b><br>
To: </b>Dr. Keith L Scott <</span><a href=mailto:kscott@mitre.org target=_blank><span style=" font-size:12pt;color:blue;font-family:Calibri"><u>kscott@mitre.org</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri">>,
</span><a href=mailto:marc.sanchez.net@jpl.nasa.gov target=_blank><span style=" font-size:12pt;color:blue;font-family:Calibri"><u>marc.sanchez.net@jpl.nasa.gov</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri">
<</span><a href=mailto:marc.sanchez.net@jpl.nasa.gov target=_blank><span style=" font-size:12pt;color:blue;font-family:Calibri"><u>marc.sanchez.net@jpl.nasa.gov</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri">><b><br>
Cc: </b></span><a href="mailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org" target=_blank><span style=" font-size:12pt;color:blue;font-family:Calibri"><u>sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri">
<</span><a href="mailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org" target=_blank><span style=" font-size:12pt;color:blue;font-family:Calibri"><u>sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri">><b><br>
Subject: </b>RE: [EXT] RE: LTP vs LTPv2</span></p>
<br><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Hi Keith,</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span>
<br><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">I agree with your
point on troubles in maintaining two books and the fact that this will
imply the same treatment for BPv7. Then whether agencies are happy to refer
to a silver book rather than a blue book is a bit question mark in my opinion.
I remember we decided a few years ago not to silverize SCPS-TP exactly
because there were activities or usage of the corresponding blue book.</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">We can certainly
bring this matter to the next CESG meeting, although I fear that there
might be no strict decision in this regard, since I think there is no specific
rule again either approaches and the hot potato could be sent back to WG.</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span>
<br><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Regards,</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span>
<br><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Tomaso</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"><b>From:</b> Dr.
Keith L Scott <</span><a href=mailto:kscott@mitre.org target=_blank><span style=" font-size:11pt;color:blue;font-family:Calibri"><u>kscott@mitre.org</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">>
<b><br>
Sent:</b> Freitag, 8. Oktober 2021 15:52<b><br>
To:</b> Cola, Tomaso de <</span><a href=mailto:Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de target=_blank><span style=" font-size:11pt;color:blue;font-family:Calibri"><u>Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">>;
</span><a href=mailto:marc.sanchez.net@jpl.nasa.gov target=_blank><span style=" font-size:11pt;color:blue;font-family:Calibri"><u>marc.sanchez.net@jpl.nasa.gov</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"><b><br>
Cc:</b> </span><a href="mailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org" target=_blank><span style=" font-size:11pt;color:blue;font-family:Calibri"><u>sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"><b><br>
Subject:</b> Re: [EXT] RE: LTP vs LTPv2</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span>
<br><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">I don’t like it,
but I propose that the WG move forward with developing the book and you
bring up the new-version vs. new-book issue to the CESG.</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span>
<br><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Reasons I don’t
like the two-book solution:</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span>
<ul>
<li><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">So now we’re maintaining
two versions of LTP, which version are folks supposed to choose for missions
going forward? They’ll choose the one with flight heritage, right?</span>
<li><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">We’ll have to do
the same thing with BPv7</span>
<li><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">There’s a version
number in the header; receivers will know what was sent.</span>
<li><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">The book as Silver
is still reference-able. If folks have systems they’re building
to the current (v1) book, they can switch to referencing the silver book.</span>
<li><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Why don’t we do
that with ALL CCSDS books, backward-compatible or not?</span></ul><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span>
<br><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">--keith</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span>
<br><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span>
<p style=";margin-Bottom:240pt"><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri"><b>From:
</b></span><a href=mailto:Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de target=_blank><span style=" font-size:12pt;color:blue;font-family:Calibri"><u>Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri">
<</span><a href=mailto:Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de target=_blank><span style=" font-size:12pt;color:blue;font-family:Calibri"><u>Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri">><b><br>
Date: </b>Friday, October 8, 2021 at 4:19 AM<b><br>
To: </b></span><a href=mailto:marc.sanchez.net@jpl.nasa.gov target=_blank><span style=" font-size:12pt;color:blue;font-family:Calibri"><u>marc.sanchez.net@jpl.nasa.gov</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri">
<</span><a href=mailto:marc.sanchez.net@jpl.nasa.gov target=_blank><span style=" font-size:12pt;color:blue;font-family:Calibri"><u>marc.sanchez.net@jpl.nasa.gov</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri">>,
Dr. Keith L Scott <</span><a href=mailto:kscott@mitre.org target=_blank><span style=" font-size:12pt;color:blue;font-family:Calibri"><u>kscott@mitre.org</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri">><b><br>
Cc: </b></span><a href="mailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org" target=_blank><span style=" font-size:12pt;color:blue;font-family:Calibri"><u>sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri">
<</span><a href="mailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org" target=_blank><span style=" font-size:12pt;color:blue;font-family:Calibri"><u>sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri">><b><br>
Subject: </b>[EXT] RE: LTP vs LTPv2</span></p>
<br><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Then probably we
should better keep two books, one with the “old LTP” for which we’ll
do some pink sheets to fix some inconsistencies and another one (the new
LTP). In such a away we could have two versions of LTP available, similarly
to IPv4 and IPv6 in IETF. Probably we may have to slightly change the title
of the books (v1 and v2?) to have a clear demarcation between the two version
of the protocols and avoid any ambiguity.</span>
<br><a href=mailto:kscott@mitre.org target=_blank><span style=" font-size:11pt;color:blue;font-family:Calibri">@Scott,
Keith L.</span></a><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">:what
do you think?</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span>
<br><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Tomaso</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span>
<br><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"><b>From:</b> SIS-DTN
<</span><a href="mailto:sis-dtn-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org" target=_blank><span style=" font-size:11pt;color:blue;font-family:Calibri"><u>sis-dtn-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Sanchez Net, Marc (US 332H) via SIS-DTN<b><br>
Sent:</b> Donnerstag, 7. Oktober 2021 00:21<b><br>
To:</b> </span><a href="mailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org" target=_blank><span style=" font-size:11pt;color:blue;font-family:Calibri"><u>sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"><b><br>
Subject:</b> [Sis-dtn] LTP vs LTPv2</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span>
<br><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">All,</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span>
<br><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">I had to leave today’s
meeting early. Did we reach consensus on how to proceed?</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span>
<br><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Also, I will note
that some colleagues at JPL (I have similar concerns) do not really like
the idea of turning the current version of LTP into a silver book. The
problem is that, by definition, a silver book implies that a protocol is
deprecated or obsolete, but several systems that are being built today
use BPv6+LTP or BPv7+LTP and thus might be in operation for a long time.
So, essentially, we are “telling” industry that they have developed an
already obsolete standard?</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span>
<br><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Best,</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Marc Sanchez Net</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:#808080;font-family:Calibri">Telecommunications
Engineer</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:#808080;font-family:Calibri">Jet
Propulsion Laboratory</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:#808080;font-family:Calibri">Office:</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:#2f2f2f;font-family:Arial">
</span><a href="tel:(818)%20393-5840" target=_blank><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:#0082bf;font-family:Arial"><u>(818)
354-1650</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:#0082bf;font-family:Arial">
</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:#808080;font-family:Calibri">|</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:#0082bf;font-family:Arial">
</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:#808080;font-family:Calibri">Email:</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:#2f2f2f;font-family:Arial">
</span><a href=mailto:marc.sanchez.net@jpl.nasa.gov target=_blank><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:blue;font-family:Arial"><u>marc.sanchez.net@jpl.nasa.gov</u></span></a>
<br><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">_______________________________________________<br>
SIS-DTN mailing list</span><span style=" font-size:11pt;color:blue;font-family:Calibri"><u><br>
</u></span><a href="mailto:SIS-DTN@mailman.ccsds.org" target=_blank><span style=" font-size:11pt;color:blue;font-family:Calibri"><u>SIS-DTN@mailman.ccsds.org</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:11pt;color:blue;font-family:Calibri"><u><br>
</u></span><a href="https://urldefense.us/v3/__https:/mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sis-dtn__;!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!Z_f9zAfnlwLR4gyL60tCPpY8aLxfAjAkAjatsKJqcaTstCqNKx5B-fjbVsUhdDStYC6-kyxp$" target=_blank><span style=" font-size:11pt;color:blue;font-family:Calibri"><u>https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sis-dtn</u></span></a></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">--
</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Please
send any postal/overnight deliveries to:</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Vint
Cerf</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">1435
Woodhurst Blvd </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">McLean,
VA 22102</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">703-448-0965</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">until
further notice</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><tt><span style=" font-size:10pt">_______________________________________________<br>
SIS-DTN mailing list<br>
SIS-DTN@mailman.ccsds.org<br>
</span></tt><a href="https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sis-dtn"><tt><span style=" font-size:10pt">https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sis-dtn</span></tt></a><tt><span style=" font-size:10pt"><br>
</span></tt></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"></p>