<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Peter,<br>
<br>
If we have agreement I will start rapidly moving in that
direction. The schema will be the SOIS EDS and SOIS DoT. For true
interoperability I think we need something in the headers that
indicate which one of the secondary headers is being used so it
can be parsed at run-time.<br>
<br>
Kind regards,<br>
<br>
Jonathan<br>
<br>
On 2/28/2019 10:36 AM, Shames, Peter M (312B) wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:56C775AB-F695-41E9-8BB3-48A9EFBA0263@jpl.nasa.gov">
<meta http-equiv="Context-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Jonathan,</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If there is a DEM to SPP mapping that uses
the standard SPP headers and adds the DEM as a packet
secondary header that would be entirely suitable.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I'd like to encourage something like a two
level approach to this:</p>
<ol start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoListParagraph">A registry for each SPP secondary
header that is registered, with org, contact person, name of
the project, and a pointer to the documentation</li>
<li class="MsoListParagraph">An XML schema (or JSON, your
choice) that formalizes the secondary header structure,
field names, data types, sizes, and definitions</li>
</ol>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">That way people can look it up, understand
it, know where to find more info, etc. And, as I suggested,
using the DoT would lend a certain regularity to the typing of
the data.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Does his make sense to you guys? </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks, Peter</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>From:
</span></b><span>SLS-SLP
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:sls-slp-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org"><sls-slp-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org></a> on behalf of
Jonathan Wilmot via SLS-SLP
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:sls-slp@mailman.ccsds.org"><sls-slp@mailman.ccsds.org></a><br>
<b>Reply-To: </b>"Wilmot, Jonathan J. (GSFC-5820)"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Jonathan.J.Wilmot@NASA.gov"><Jonathan.J.Wilmot@NASA.gov></a><br>
<b>Date: </b>Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 7:28 AM<br>
<b>To: </b>Peter Shames
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Peter.M.Shames@jpl.nasa.gov"><Peter.M.Shames@jpl.nasa.gov></a>, Scott Burleigh
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Scott.C.Burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov"><Scott.C.Burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov></a>, "Greenberg, Edward"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Edward.Greenberg@jpl.nasa.gov"><Edward.Greenberg@jpl.nasa.gov></a>,
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:sls-slp@mailman.ccsds.org">"sls-slp@mailman.ccsds.org"</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:sls-slp@mailman.ccsds.org"><sls-slp@mailman.ccsds.org></a><br>
<b>Cc: </b>Lee Pitts <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:robert.l.pitts@nasa.gov"><robert.l.pitts@nasa.gov></a><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [Sls-slp] Call for Use Cases of Space
Packet Protocol</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Peter and folks<br>
<br>
I agree with Peter's approach and would welcome moving
forward with this. Hopefully before the missions finalize
their implementation.
<br>
<br>
As I remember, the DEM did not adopt the SPP format but
they did contain the same type of meta data that ECSS-PUS
and the SPP proposal contain. The mapping between the Orion
DEM and the SPP proposal format has been done and is in use
at JSC for the LOP-G prototyping efforts. <br>
<br>
Kind regards,<br>
<br>
Jonathan <br>
<br>
On 2/28/2019 10:14 AM, Shames, Peter M (312B) wrote:</p>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">
Folks,</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">
What we have proposed in the SPP revision is to create a
SANA registry for local, agency, or even multi-agency
packet secondary headers. This could include PUS, MAL
packet mapping, Jonathan's LOP-G headers, and others.
There is a proposal for a simple registry structure in the
draft SPP doc that would allow all of these to be
registered. I suggest that you look at this and propose
any needed metadata for the registry. You could try and
engage in some sort of "normalization" effort for the
field names, structures, and contents, or at least try and
do some sort of evaluation of the kinds of data and the
different ways they are named and represented. I'll bet
you will find that they are all over the map.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">
By the way, the SOIS Dictionary of Terms (DoT) may prove
to be useful as a source of standardized terms.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">
Lastly, as I recall the Constellation DEM did not adhere
to the SPP at all. I may be mis-remembering.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">
Cheers, Peter</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">
</p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">
<b>From: </b>SLS-SLP <a
href="mailto:sls-slp-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"><sls-slp-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org></a>
on behalf of Jonathan Wilmot via SLS-SLP
<a href="mailto:sls-slp@mailman.ccsds.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"><sls-slp@mailman.ccsds.org></a><br>
<b>Reply-To: </b>"Wilmot, Jonathan J. (GSFC-5820)" <a
href="mailto:Jonathan.J.Wilmot@NASA.gov"
moz-do-not-send="true">
<Jonathan.J.Wilmot@NASA.gov></a><br>
<b>Date: </b>Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 7:03 AM<br>
<b>To: </b>Scott Burleigh <a
href="mailto:Scott.C.Burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov"
moz-do-not-send="true"><Scott.C.Burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov></a>,
"Greenberg, Edward"
<a href="mailto:Edward.Greenberg@jpl.nasa.gov"
moz-do-not-send="true"><Edward.Greenberg@jpl.nasa.gov></a>,
<a href="mailto:sls-slp@mailman.ccsds.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">"sls-slp@mailman.ccsds.org"</a>
<a href="mailto:sls-slp@mailman.ccsds.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">
<sls-slp@mailman.ccsds.org></a><br>
<b>Cc: </b>Peter Shames <a
href="mailto:Peter.M.Shames@jpl.nasa.gov"
moz-do-not-send="true"><Peter.M.Shames@jpl.nasa.gov></a>,
Lee Pitts
<a href="mailto:robert.l.pitts@nasa.gov"
moz-do-not-send="true"><robert.l.pitts@nasa.gov></a><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [Sls-slp] Call for Use Cases of
Space Packet Protocol</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">
</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">
Ed, Scott,<br>
<br>
The CCSDS Space Packet is being used at NASA, ESA and
CAST as end user application command and telemetry
message. It contains information in the primary and
secondary headers to allow end user applications to
identify the data content and format, and also allow
mission architecture specific lower layers to transport
user application data within a subnetworks or across
networks.
<br>
<br>
As part of this discussion I would like to re-submit
a proposal to create a secondary header that could be
included as an optional header in the SPP Blue book or
registered in SANA as a standard SPP secondary header
type. (ECSS-PUS headers should also be registered)<br>
<br>
Note: The LOP-G program, and other missions at JSC,
GSFC, and ARC, are currently using the format in the
attached proposal. This is an opportunity for CCSDS to
improve mission interoperability by supporting the SPP
uses cases that missions require.<br>
<br>
Kind Regards,<br>
<br>
Jonathan<br>
<br>
Jonathan Wilmot<br>
NASA/GSFC<br>
CCSDS SOIS Area Director<br>
<br>
On 4/22/2018 12:16 PM, Burleigh, Scott C (312B) wrote:</p>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">
Ed, I think of the Space Packet as being the thing
that the old Constellation project called a Data
Exchange Message (DEM). I think it performs the same
function in the stack, and I suspect that it could
easily carry all the same metadata that the DEM was
supposed to carry.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">
Scott</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">
</p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">
<b>From:</b> Greenberg, Edward (312B) <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, April 22, 2018 7:37 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a
href="mailto:sls-slp@mailman.ccsds.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">sls-slp@mailman.ccsds.org</a>;
<a href="mailto:Jonathan.J.Wilmot@NASA.gov"
moz-do-not-send="true">Jonathan.J.Wilmot@NASA.gov</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Lee Pitts <a
href="mailto:robert.l.pitts@nasa.gov"
moz-do-not-send="true"><robert.l.pitts@nasa.gov></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Call for Use Cases of Space Packet
Protocol</p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">
There seems to be lots of new Use Cases for Space
Packets then were considered in the original
specification. For example:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">
· ESA has PUS </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">
· Space Station has its own secondary header </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">
· Orion is looking for a secondary header </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">
Originally the Space Packet was an envelope for data
transferred over single link (includes tunneling), now
the packet is being looked at for network data
transfer, local onboard data transfer (including
measurement broadcasting).
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">
It is possible that the role of the packet might
change with the use of DTN bundles.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">
Just to take the broadest view: We currently have two
forms of packets, should there be more or should even
these be examined to determine if they should be
blended into a new packet design.
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">
Can we get each of you to send in your present and
possibly desired Use Cases for our beloved Space
Packet so that we could determine its future.
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>