[CESG] Topic for telecon: Defining SANA registries on Orange book request

Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int
Wed Sep 3 15:16:53 UTC 2014


Peter,
        we had to skip this topic because we got late.
As well, I did propose te topic beacuse I am pretty sure we had not ever 
had to deal with this kind of question before,
Actually in another point the Orange Book states:
.... it is necessary to:
? define a new reserved APID in case of a Space Packet, to signal the use 
of the EC shim layer.
? define a new Protocol Identifier or new protocol extensions, in case of 
an Encapsulation Packet, to signal the use of the EC shim layer. 

The second bullet is aligned with your (good) remark and supersed the text 
I attached to my first e-mail.

I propose we oput this in agenda for next CESG telecon also considering 
that
1) for the time being the APID can be left undefined and subject to agency 
choice and management.
2) One value of the Extended Protocol Identifiers can be set to be "Agency 
Specific"
3) JPL and DLR are preparing a concept paper for a Blue Book on Erasure 
Codes so in the future we may have stringer need for those SANA values.

 and, last but not least, we do need a CESG agreed approach.

Regards

Gippo



From:   "Shames, Peter M (312G)" <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
To:     "Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int" <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>, 
"Nestor.Peccia at esa.int" <Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>, 
Cc:     Tom Gannett <tomg at aiaa.org>, CCSDS CESG -- 
<cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Date:   03/09/2014 02:16
Subject:        Re: [CESG] Topic for telecon: Defining SANA registries on 
Orange book request



Gippo,

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.

Regards, Peter



From: Gian Paolo Calzolari <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>
Date: Monday, September 1, 2014 12:07 AM
To: Nestor Peccia <Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>
Cc: Tom Gannett <tomg at aiaa.org>, CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG 
Exec <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?

Regards 

Gian Paolo 
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.


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...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20140903/ae590972/attachment.html>


More information about the CESG mailing list