[CESG] Topic for telecon: Defining SANA registries on Orange book request
Shames, Peter M (312G)
peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov
Wed Sep 3 00:16:42 UTC 2014
I do not believe that we got to this topic in today's CESG telecon. We have not, to my knowledge, ever had to deal with this kind of question before, I.e. The creation of a registry or changes to a registry by an Orange Book. We had to deal with something similar back when SCPS was published as an Orange Book, but at that point we did not have a SANA and the "registry" was just the published documents.
I general I think we should consider this sort of request, but I think we need to do an engineering analysis in the general case to see if it is acceptable. My reasoning is that if we have a lot of Orange Books (and we seem to be creating more of them now) we could use up valuable "ID" real estate quickly, as in Protocol ID and Reserved APIDs. The Extended Protocol Ids are not so much of an issue.
In the normal SANA course of things each registry has an associated policy and means of managing the registry entries. Given the limited number space it does not seem reasonable to me to allow an experimental spec to use up one of the limited number of protocol identifiers defined in 135.0-B-4, table 7-7a,, but it does seem acceptable to use one of the extended protocol identifiers defined in 133.1-b-2.
Furthermore, the policy on both of these registries is "CCSDSBlue", which means that only a Blue Book update is acceptable. Perhaps that policy should be re-stated for the Extended Protocol Identifiers (http://sanaregistry.org/r/extended_protocol_id/extended_protocol_id.html), to allow such more liberal assignments, but surely not for the protocol identifiers (http://sanaregistry.org/r/protocol_id/protocol_id.html).
In any event, I think that this is something that the SLS should take up and bring to the SSG (and/or CESG) for further discussion after the technical options and implications have been deliberated.
From: Gian Paolo Calzolari <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int<mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>>
Date: Monday, September 1, 2014 12:07 AM
To: Nestor Peccia <Nestor.Peccia at esa.int<mailto:Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>>
Cc: Tom Gannett <tomg at aiaa.org<mailto:tomg at aiaa.org>>, CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>>
Subject: [CESG] Topic for telecon: Defining SANA registries on Orange book request
Nestor, I would like to add a topic for next telecon.
As you know CESG is voting for the pblication of an Orange Book on Erasure Codes.
This draft book states:
This document requests that SANA perform the following actions:
1. define a new reserved APID...
2. define a new Protocol Identifier...
3, define a new Extended Protocol Identifier...
In general I think a (published) book should not contain those requests but simply reference the registries that should be created "as part of the approval process.
However in this case we are speaking about an Orange Book.
Is it acceptable to create registries for Orange Books?
This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee or addressees only.
The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in whole or in part) of its
content is not permitted.
If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system.
Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the sender.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the CESG