[CESG] Can we put a quick discussion of the SSI Architecture Document on the agenda for the telecon?

[Shames, Peter M (312G)]

Just for clarification.  My proposal is to acknowledge that that there are significant changes and developments required in both the SSI / networking layer and in the link layer services and their integrations into the space communications service providers.   What is required is a period for defining and deploying new CSTS forward frame protocols and also new networking protocols,.  This approach also recognizes  that transitioning from missions doing their own thing using existing space link services, to missions getting updated space link and internetworking services from the service providers is a more significant, and more natural, boundary between Stage 1 and Stage 2 than just changes in SSI (network layer) protocol automation.

Regards, Peter



From: <Scott>, Keith Scott <kscott at mitre.org<mailto:kscott at mitre.org>>
Date: Monday, October 7, 2013 11:37 AM
To: Nestor Peccia <Nestor.Peccia at esa.int<mailto:Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>>
Cc: Scott Burleigh <Scott.C.Burleigh at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:Scott.C.Burleigh at jpl.nasa.gov>>, John Rush <john.j.rush at nasa.gov<mailto:john.j.rush at nasa.gov>>, CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>>
Subject: [CESG] Can we put a quick discussion of the SSI Architecture Document on the agenda for the telecon?

Nestor,

SIS and SEA are trying to resolve the RIDS against the SSI architecture document from the SEA area.  Peter’s proposal is to redefine the ‘stages’ of the SSI architecture document around ‘degree of change to existing networks’ rather than the current ‘degree of automation / cross-support’.  Resolving the RIDs would result in (I believe) significant changes in the document with respect to what was sent to and approved by SISG / IOP.  I’m concerned that large changes to the document at this point could be disruptive.

Attached are the SEA RIDs and a document from Peter describing his proposed changes.

I’d like to discuss with the CESG what our options are for moving forward:


1)    Go with Peter’s proposal (change the document)

2)    Reject Peter’s RIDs and publish the document as-is

3)    Consult with the SISG to determine their opinion

4)    Other?

Best Regards,

                  --keith


Dr. Keith Scott                                                                                           Office: +1.703.983.6547
Principal Engineer, E535                                                                        kscott at mitre.org<mailto:kscott at mitre.org>
The MITRE Corporation<http://www.mitre.org/>
M/S H300
7515 Colshire Drive
McLean, VA 22102

Area Director,CCSDS<http://www.ccsds.org/>Space Internetworking Services<http://cwe.ccsds.org/sis/default.aspx>

MITRE self-signs its own certificates.  Information about the MITRE PKI Certificate Chain is available from http://www.mitre.org/tech/mii/pki/


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20131007/33ed2eae/attachment.htm