<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7654.4">
<TITLE>UC RE: [Sls-slp] Security, NGU and New TC services and there effect on COP-1</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/rtf format -->
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">Ed,</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">Just to confirm our conclusion:</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">We agreed that if you put the security</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New"> layer</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New"></FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">before the COP</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New"></FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">it would not</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">technically</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New"> cause problems with</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New"> the operation of the COP</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">/FARM as it is defined</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">.</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New"></FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">And</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New"> the reason for putting the layer before</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New"> the COP</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New"> is</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">if you</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">already</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">have</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New"></FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">existing</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New"> hardware</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">TC</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New"> processors</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New"></FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">which we do in Europe</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">.</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New"></FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">However, you would need to complete</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New"> the security checks and then re-package the frame to be processed by the ASICs</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">. This means that</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New"></FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">you</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New"> are going up and down the stack on board the spacecraft</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">.</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">So</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New"> this</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">method is</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">n</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">’</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">t pretty and</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">CCSDS</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New"></FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">should</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">n't</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New"></FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">standardise this</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">way</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">of operations</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">as it is only</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">relevant</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New"> for a specific implementation.</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New"></FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> </SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">Where we disagree</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">is</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New"> that the COP isn't "broken" if you put the security afterwards</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New"> and the security layer fails its checks.</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New"></FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">This comes back to where the COP/FARM has finished its job (to guarantee</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New"></FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">deliver</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">y of complete in</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">sequence</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">, error free commands)</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">. Our disagreement was that I believe that the COP has finished when it hands the command to the next process</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New"> (whatever that is)</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New"></FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">–</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New"> in this</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">example</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New"> it is the security layer.</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">You believe that the COP</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">has</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New"> not</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">completing</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New"> its job correctly if the next process or processes throws the</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">command</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New"></FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">away for another failure</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">–</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New"> in this case</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">if the</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New"> security has failed.</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">I am happy to discuss this at the meeting in ESTEC as this covers one of my actions. </FONT></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">Cheers,</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">Matt.</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: sls-slp-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org [<A HREF="mailto:sls-slp-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org">mailto:sls-slp-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org</A>] On Behalf Of Greenberg, Edward (313B)<BR>
Sent: 13 October 2009 17:36<BR>
To: SLS-SLP WG<BR>
Cc: Shames, Peter M (3130); Howie Weiss<BR>
Subject: [Sls-slp] Security, NGU and New TC services and there effect on COP-1</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">Last week Majorie De Lande Long posed the question as to how the new</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">security header and its placement in the TC frame would effect COP-1.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">A few weeks ago Greg and I had a long discussion with Matt Cosby on this</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">very topic. We concluded that if the security was processed prior to the</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">COP there is no issue. The only problem is that the FEC decoding should be</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">performed before the security process.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">This leads us to another item that can be put on the table. The CCSDS is in</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">the final phases of approving the LDPC codes and the new generation uplink</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">team is investigating how to improve performance for commanding. One of the</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">things being considered is to use the LDPC code for all uplinks by placing</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">it in the physical layer. I this way the code would be put on synchronously</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">to carry the synchronous bits required in the link but independent of the</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">frames contain in the link. Thus taking advantage of the 8 db gain provided</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">by the coding without changing the link layer protocol. One of the benefits</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">of this approach is that the TC link layer protocol need not be modified and</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">ESA's current flight command decoder implementation need not be changed. The</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">only that that would be required on the flight side is an LDPC decoder with</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">a security processor that outputs the TC frame as currently defined</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">(eliminating the inserted security data fields and decrypting the data frame</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">data field. </FONT></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New"> </FONT></SPAN></P>
<BR>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">_______________________________________________</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">Sls-slp mailing list</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">Sls-slp@mailman.ccsds.org</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New"><A HREF="http://mailman.ccsds.org/mailman/listinfo/sls-slp">http://mailman.ccsds.org/mailman/listinfo/sls-slp</A></FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"></SPAN></P>
<P>The information contained in this E-Mail and any subsequent
<BR>correspondence is private and is intended solely for the intended
<BR>recipient(s). The information in this communication may be
<BR>confidential and/or legally privileged. Nothing in this e-mail is
<BR>intended to conclude a contract on behalf of QinetiQ or make QinetiQ
<BR>subject to any other legally binding commitments, unless the e-mail
<BR>contains an express statement to the contrary or incorporates a formal
Purchase Order.</P>
<P>For those other than the recipient any disclosure, copying, <BR>distribution,
or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance <BR>on such information
is prohibited and may be unlawful.</P>
<P>Emails and other electronic communication with QinetiQ may be <BR>monitored
and recorded for business purposes including security, audit <BR>and archival
purposes. Any response to this email indicates consent <BR>to this.</P>
<P>Telephone calls to QinetiQ may be monitored or recorded for quality
<BR>control, security and other business purposes.</P>
<P>QinetiQ Limited<BR>Registered in England & Wales: Company
Number:3796233<BR>Registered office: 85 Buckingham Gate, London SW1E 6PD, United
Kingdom<BR>Trading address: Cody Technology Park, Cody Building, Ively Road,
Farnborough, Hampshire, GU14 0LX, United Kingdom <BR><A
href="http://www.qinetiq.com/home/notices/legal.html">http://www.qinetiq.com/home/notices/legal.html</A><A
href="http://www.QinetiQ.com/home/legal.html"></A></P>
</BODY>
</HTML>