<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 20px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">
<div>Dear SLP WG,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Attached please find the updated CCSDS 130.2-G-2.1 Space Data Link Protocols – Summary of Concept and Rationale Green Book. I concur with Peter Shames’ comments which are identified in blue in the attachment.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Please let me know if you have any concerns or comments with this update by Sept. 2. Otherwise, I will assume you approve of this update. </div>
<div>I would like to move forward with it so that the secretariat can process it along with the other approved SLP changes to TM, TC, AOS space data link blue books.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best regards,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Greg</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
<div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt">
<span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span><Shames>, "Peter M (312B)" <<a href="mailto:peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov">peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 11:07 AM<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span>"Kazz, Greg J (313B)" <<a href="mailto:greg.j.kazz@jpl.nasa.gov">greg.j.kazz@jpl.nasa.gov</a>>, "<a href="mailto:Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de">Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de</a>" <<a href="mailto:Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de">Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Cc: </span>"<a href="mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int">Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int</a>" <<a href="mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int">Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int</a>>, Thomas Gannett <<a href="mailto:tomg@aiaa.org">tomg@aiaa.org</a>>,
"<a href="mailto:sls-slp@mailman.ccsds.org">sls-slp@mailman.ccsds.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:sls-slp@mailman.ccsds.org">sls-slp@mailman.ccsds.org</a>>, "<a href="mailto:cesg@mailman.ccsds.org">cesg@mailman.ccsds.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:cesg@mailman.ccsds.org">cesg@mailman.ccsds.org</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span>Re: Results of CESG Polls closing 14 August 2015<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">
<div>Hi Greg,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I have reviewed your notes and the edited version of the document that you provided. In general I am in agreement with all of the changes you have proposed and noted in the PDF. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In reading over the Word version to see the actual changes I found some minor points that I thought needed further clarification. As a result I have used Track Changes to provide some further suggestions for clarification. If you and the WG accept these
I think we have closure.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best regards, Peter</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
<div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt">
<span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span>Greg Kazz <<a href="mailto:Greg.J.Kazz@jpl.nasa.gov">Greg.J.Kazz@jpl.nasa.gov</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 4:45 PM<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span>Peter Shames <<a href="mailto:peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov">peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov</a>>, "<a href="mailto:Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de">Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de</a>" <<a href="mailto:Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de">Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Cc: </span>Gian Paolo Calzolari <<a href="mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int">Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int</a>>, Tom Gannett <<a href="mailto:tomg@aiaa.org">tomg@aiaa.org</a>>, "<a href="mailto:sls-slp@mailman.ccsds.org">sls-slp@mailman.ccsds.org</a>"
<<a href="mailto:sls-slp@mailman.ccsds.org">sls-slp@mailman.ccsds.org</a>>, CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <<a href="mailto:cesg@mailman.ccsds.org">cesg@mailman.ccsds.org</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span>Re: Results of CESG Polls closing 14 August 2015<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="BORDER-LEFT: #b5c4df 5 solid; PADDING:0 0 0 5; MARGIN:0 0 0 5;">
<div>
<div>
<div>Dear Peter and Tomaso,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Attached please find 2 files. The first is an updated Word document that</div>
<div>contains my ³purple lines² changes to the Space Data Link</div>
<div>Protocols-Summary of Concept and Rationale CCSDS 130.2-G-2.1 with</div>
<div>dispositions to your ³RIDs². Thank you very much for all of your</div>
<div>thoughtful comments. It has made the Green book much more robust.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The second pdf file contains answers to Peter¹s questions within the</div>
<div>comment bubbles using the reply feature.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Regards,</div>
<div>Greg</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>On 8/17/15, 1:27 PM, "Thomas Gannett" <<a href="mailto:tomg@aiaa.org">tomg@aiaa.org</a>> wrote:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="BORDER-LEFT: #b5c4df 5 solid; PADDING:0 0 0 5; MARGIN:0 0 0 5;">
<div>Greg:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The CESG approval polls for the SLS link layer updates concluded with</div>
<div>conditional approval (conditions are stated below). Approval</div>
<div>conditions for the specifications themselves are minor; Peter's</div>
<div>conditions for approval of the Green Book appear to be somewhat more</div>
<div>involved (his markup of the PDF file is attached).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I suggest you respond directly to Peter and Tomaso (don't worry about</div>
<div>the issue-number conditions) with your proposed dispositions, CCing</div>
<div>me and <a href="mailto:cesg@mailman.ccsds.org">cesg@mailman.ccsds.org</a>. When agreement on the dispositions</div>
<div>exists, I'll update the files per the dispositions.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Tom</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>At 03:37 PM 8/17/2015, CCSDS Secretariat wrote:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="BORDER-LEFT: #b5c4df 5 solid; PADDING:0 0 0 5; MARGIN:0 0 0 5;">
<div>CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2015-07-002 Approval to publish CCSDS</div>
<div>132.0-B-2, TM Space Data Link Protocol (Blue Book, Issue 2)</div>
<div>Results of CESG poll beginning 31 July 2015 and ending 14 August 2015:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> Abstain: 0 (0%)</div>
<div> Approve Unconditionally: 7 (77.78%) (Merri, Behal, Scott,</div>
<div>Calzolari, Moury, Suess, Barton)</div>
<div> Approve with Conditions: 2 (22.22%) (Shames, Cola)</div>
<div> Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions): This is approved with one</div>
<div>condition: Add references to the SCCS-ADD (CCSDS 901.0-G) and</div>
<div>SCCS-ARD (901.1-M) to section 2.1.1 Architecture where the OSCP is</div>
<div>also included.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Also, note that the term "payload", which is used (inconsistently)</div>
<div>in the SDLS document (CCSDS 355x0b) does not appear anywhere in this</div>
<div>document.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>However, Figure 6-1 does make the relationships among User Data,</div>
<div>Transfer Frame Data Field, and Security Header and Trailer quite</div>
<div>clear without using this term.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Keith Scott (Approve Unconditionally): In principle I concur with</div>
<div>Tomaso that the reference to the SDLS book should be updated to</div>
<div>reflect the published version of the SDLS Blue Book (provided that</div>
<div>the SDLS Blue Book is approved in the same round of polling as TM).</div>
<div>This assumes that there are no substantive differences between the</div>
<div>draft SDLS book referenced here and the final SDLS book, which I</div>
<div>believe is the case; however, a comment on this by the Security WG</div>
<div>might be useful.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>--keith</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Tomaso de Cola (Approve with Conditions): I would suggest to update</div>
<div>reference (normative) 10, so that issue 1, instead of issue 0</div>
<div>appears. Obviously, the "code" of the referenced CCSDS book should</div>
<div>be updated accordingly as well.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Total Respondents: 9</div>
<div>No response was received from the following Area(s):</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>CSS</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with Conditions</div>
<div>PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate CMC poll after</div>
<div>conditions have been addressed</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2015-07-003 Approval to publish CCSDS</div>
<div>232.0-B-3, TC Space Data Link Protocol (Blue Book, Issue 3)</div>
<div>Results of CESG poll beginning 31 July 2015 and ending 14 August 2015:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> Abstain: 0 (0%)</div>
<div> Approve Unconditionally: 7 (77.78%) (Merri, Behal, Scott,</div>
<div>Calzolari, Moury, Suess, Barton)</div>
<div> Approve with Conditions: 2 (22.22%) (Shames, Cola)</div>
<div> Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions): This is approved with one</div>
<div>condition: Add references to the SCCS-ADD (CCSDS 901.0-G) and</div>
<div>SCCS-ARD (901.1-M) to section 2.1.1 Architecture where the OSCP is</div>
<div>also included.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Also, note that the term "payload", which is used (inconsistently)</div>
<div>in the SDLS document (CCSDS 355x0b) does not appear anywhere in this</div>
<div>document.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>However, Figure 6-1 does make the relationships among User Data,</div>
<div>Transfer Frame Data Field, and Security Header and Trailer quite</div>
<div>clear without using this term.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Keith Scott (Approve Unconditionally): In principle I concur with</div>
<div>Tomaso that the reference to the SDLS book should be updated to</div>
<div>reflect the published version of the SDLS Blue Book (provided that</div>
<div>the SDLS Blue Book is approved in the same round of polling as TC).</div>
<div>This assumes that there are no substantive differences between the</div>
<div>draft SDLS book referenced here and the final SDLS book, which I</div>
<div>believe is the case; however, a comment on this by the Security WG</div>
<div>might be useful.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>--keith</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Tomaso de Cola (Approve with Conditions): As stated for TM book, the</div>
<div>reference to SDLS blue book should be with issue 1, instead of 0.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Total Respondents: 9</div>
<div>No response was received from the following Area(s):</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>CSS</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with Conditions</div>
<div>PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate CMC poll after</div>
<div>conditions have been addressed</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2015-07-004 Approval to publish CCSDS</div>
<div>732.0-B-3, AOS Space Data Link Protocol (Blue Book, Issue 3)</div>
<div>Results of CESG poll beginning 31 July 2015 and ending 14 August 2015:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> Abstain: 0 (0%)</div>
<div> Approve Unconditionally: 8 (88.89%) (Merri, Behal, Scott, Cola,</div>
<div>Calzolari, Moury, Suess, Barton)</div>
<div> Approve with Conditions: 1 (11.11%) (Shames)</div>
<div> Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions): This is approved with one</div>
<div>condition: Add references to the SCCS-ADD (CCSDS 901.0-G) and</div>
<div>SCCS-ARD (901.1-M) to section 2.1.1 Architecture where the OSCP is</div>
<div>also included.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Also, note that the term "payload", which is used (inconsistently)</div>
<div>in the SDLS document (CCSDS 355x0b) does not appear anywhere in this</div>
<div>document.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>However, Figure 6-1 does make the relationships among User Data,</div>
<div>Transfer Frame Data Field, and Security Header and Trailer quite</div>
<div>clear without using this term.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Keith Scott (Approve Unconditionally): In principle I concur with</div>
<div>Tomaso that the reference to the SDLS book should be updated to</div>
<div>reflect the published version of the SDLS Blue Book (provided that</div>
<div>the SDLS Blue Book is approved in the same round of polling as AOS).</div>
<div>This assumes that there are no substantive differences between the</div>
<div>draft SDLS book referenced here and the final SDLS book, which I</div>
<div>believe is the case; however, a comment on this by the Security WG</div>
<div>might be useful.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>--keith</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Tomaso de Cola (Approve Unconditionally): As stated for the TM book,</div>
<div>the reference to SDLS blue book should be with issue 1, instead of 0.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Total Respondents: 9</div>
<div>No response was received from the following Area(s):</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>CSS</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with Conditions</div>
<div>PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate CMC poll after</div>
<div>conditions have been addressed</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2015-07-005 Approval to publish CCSDS</div>
<div>130.2-G-3, Space Data Link Protocols-Summary of Concept and</div>
<div>Rationale (Green Book, Issue 3)</div>
<div>Results of CESG poll beginning 31 July 2015 and ending 14 August 2015:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> Abstain: 0 (0%)</div>
<div> Approve Unconditionally: 6 (75%) (Merri, Behal, Calzolari, Moury,</div>
<div>Suess, Barton)</div>
<div> Approve with Conditions: 2 (25%) (Shames, Cola)</div>
<div> Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions): This document still needs a</div>
<div>significant amount of work. Here are the major issues:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>1) It talks about the role of Service Providers in a number of</div>
<div>places, but the SLE interfaces, and the role of space data service</div>
<div>providers, is essentially ignored. The only SLE service that is</div>
<div>included is FSP, CLTU, RAF and RCF are all left out, a major omission.</div>
<div>2) Prox-1 is left out, but spacecraft to spacecraft links are</div>
<div>mentioned in several places. This tends to suggest that these links</div>
<div>should be serviced by TC & TM, which is not typically the best approach.</div>
<div>3) AOS is described only in the context of audio and video services,</div>
<div>its use for high rate data links is not even mentioned.</div>
<div>4) RASDS diagrams are used throughout, but there is no reference</div>
<div>made to RASDS (CCSDS 311.0-M). References should also be made to the</div>
<div>SCCS-ADD (CCSDS 901.0-G) and the SCCS-ARD (CCSDS 901.1-M). These</div>
<div>documents provide the best context for understanding the</div>
<div>relationships among all of these SLS protocols and the CSS services.</div>
<div>5) The treatment of COP, FOP, FARM is a little uneven and no mention</div>
<div>is made of LTP as a means to assure reliable delivery of link layer data.</div>
<div>6) The only "network" protocols that are mentioned are SPP (and a</div>
<div>little about Encap). There is not mention of other CCSDS upper layer</div>
<div>protocols like LTP, CFDP, AMS, IP or DTN. These application layer</div>
<div>and network layer protocols are a part of CCSDS and their</div>
<div>relationship to the link layer should be made clear.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Tomaso de Cola (Approve with Conditions): Three comments:</div>
<div>1) reference to SDLS (reference [21]) should be updated to issue 1.</div>
<div>2) In section 2 it is stated that proximity-1 is out of the scope of</div>
<div>the book, because a separated green book is already available about</div>
<div>proximity-1. I'd place a similar statement also in section 1.2,</div>
<div>where actually the scope of the book is established.</div>
<div>3) In section 5.2, it is mentioned that proximity-1 does not have</div>
<div>specific security requirements. Since the book does not address</div>
<div>Proximity-1, I would drop this consideration.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Total Respondents: 8</div>
<div>No response was received from the following Area(s):</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>CSS</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with Conditions</div>
<div>PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate CMC poll after</div>
<div>conditions have been addressed</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thomas Gannett</div>
<div>+1 443 472 0805 </div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</span></div>
</div>
</span>
</body>
</html>