Unspecified Management System: [CESG] Re: Results of CESG Polls closing 14 August 2015

Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int
Fri Aug 28 07:39:04 UTC 2015

Dear Peter,
        I am extremely reluctant to accept your condition about adding the 
term "unspecified" in front of "management system".

First of all Craig motivated the non addition of this term in his WinWord 
comment stating <Using the word 'unspecified' for management in section 
6.1 is not consistent with the language used with the SLP BBs.  Each of 
the four standards (SDLS, TC, TM, AOS) contains a statement in section 1.2 
where the absence of specification for the management activities is 
stated.  Otherwise, the word 'unspecified' does not show up a single time 
in TC, TM and AOS BBs. 
The WG prefers to be consistent with the SLP books, and proposes not to 
add the word 'unspecified' here.>

Moreover if we accept this trend than each CCSDS document will need to add 
the term unspecified in front of whatever is not specified in that 
document or outside.
It is also not fully true that the management is unspecified, actually 
chapter 6 itself contains a number of requirement (not all requirements, 
indeed) to be used when specifying the (agency specific) management 
Last but not l;east, CCSDS never specifies systems but rather provide 
standards to be used for a subset (sometimes large) of the systems 
specification to be issued by a given Agency/Company.

So I do recommend keeping consistency within the documents of the SLS Area 
and not adding the term "unspecified" in front of "management system" and 
I kindly ask you to withdraw this specific condition.

Best regards

Gian Paolo

From:   "Shames, Peter M (312B)" <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
To:     "Biggerstaff, Craig (JSC-CD221)[LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP]" 
<craig.biggerstaff at nasa.gov>, "Scott, Keith L (9730-Affiliate)" 
<kscott at mitre.org>, "tomaso.decola at dlr.de" <tomaso.decola at dlr.de>, 
Cc:     "howie.weiss at sparta.com" <howie.weiss at sparta.com>, 
"cesg at mailman.ccsds.org" <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Date:   28/08/2015 02:48
Subject:        [CESG] Re: Results of CESG Polls closing 14 August 2015
Sent by:        cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org

Dear Craig, et al,

I have reviewed the proposed changes to the document.  I find all of them 
acceptable except for one.  I really believe that this document will 
better represent its functions if a new, simplified, version of "figure 
6-1? is included in sec 2.2.2.  This would allow you to introduce in a 
graphical way exactly what this protocol does relative to the three space 
data link protocols.   You can then point to the protocol specific 
versions as you have.

And on pg 6-1, sec 6.1 there was a side note about the "management system? 
being unspecified.  I propose changing the text to read "Through the use 
of an out of band and unspecified management system?"

I think that gets the flavor of what you are describing.  Would you agree?

There is this further loose end having to do with the ?still in work? 
CCSDS SDLS Extended Procedures recommendation (reference 355.1-B).  It is 
mentioned twice in the document in NOTE and overview text.  Since it is 
not final this is probably appropriate.  Tom Gannett will probably have an 
opinion about this, but I think you could insert a reference to the Red 
Book in the non normative references and mark it as [Future}.  We did that 
on the SCCS-ARD and no one screamed, and it at least gets a clear 
reference to the ?to be published? standard into the document.

Best regards, Peter

From: "Biggerstaff, Craig (JSC-CD221)[LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP]" <
craig.biggerstaff at nasa.gov>
Date: Thursday, August 27, 2015 at 4:16 PM
To: Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>, Keith Scott <
kscott at mitre.org>, "tomaso.decola at dlr.de" <tomaso.decola at dlr.de>
Cc: CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>, 
Gilles Moury <Gilles.Moury at cnes.fr>, "howie.weiss at sparta.com" <
howie.weiss at sparta.com>
Subject: RE: Results of CESG Polls closing 14 August 2015

Dear ADs/DADs,

As the book editor of CCSDS 355.1-B-0 'Space Data Link Security Protocol', 
I have attached proposed text changes that, the WG believes, will resolve 
your CESG poll conditions.  Please review these changes and let me know if 
the changes answer your requirements.  Thank you.

Best regards,

Craig Biggerstaff

At 03:37 PM 8/17/2015, CCSDS Secretariat wrote:
CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2015-07-001 Approval to publish CCSDS
355.0-B-1, Space Data Link Security Protocol (Blue Book, Issue 1)
Results of CESG poll beginning 31 July 2015 and ending 14 August 2015:

                  Abstain:  0 (0%)
  Approve Unconditionally:  6 (66.67%) (Merri, Behal, Calzolari,
Moury, Suess, Barton)
  Approve with Conditions:  3 (33.33%) (Shames, Scott, Cola)
  Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)


Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions): We need this document to be
published, and soon, but there are still a few inconsistencies that
I believe should be fixed before that happens. There are marked in
the attached text, but I will summarize them here:

1) The document is missing a really good overview description and
figure showing the relationship of the user provided transfer frame
data field to the secured field. Such figures are in docs like CCSDS 

What you are asking for was originally in the SDLS Red Book but was moved 
to the TC/TM/AOS Pink Books.  The WG would prefer to reference those books 
instead of duplicating the overview information.

2) related to 1), the term "payload" is defined in sec 1.6, but it
is then not used in any consistent way within the rest of the
document. And the definition of the word "payload" is disjoint from
other CCSDS usage. The word "package" or "user provided data" might be 

The use of "Payload" in this document follows its common use within 
cryptography.  Its meaning within the context of this document has been 
defined in 1.8, and it is now capitalized as a proper name throughout. The 
WG believes this will clear up any confusion.

3) The Security Association Management Service, sec 3.4, reads like
Green Book material, not Blue Book. There is not even an abstract
service spec provided and as such it appears to be non-normative
content. The related "Primitives" are not even sketched out, which
makes this section look even more "unfinished".

The WG's consensus was that specifying only the required Security 
Association managed parameters was sufficient for 355.0, which the WG 
wanted to keep 'lightweight'.  The WG did originally consider a set of 
service primitives covering SA management, but decided that including them 
in the 355.0 core protocol would unduly constrain operations centers to a 
particular state model for operational key changes and recovery from 
spacecraft failures, where is not now any consensus to reverse 
agency-specific approaches.  Those subjects were deemed material for the 
Green Book or else for the SDLS Extended Procedures Blue Book.

4) There is a repeated description of "Rollover of the sequence
number could be used to signal the end of the acceptable lifetime of
a cryptographic key", which sounds like specific guidance, but
always appears in a NOTE. This might be better expressed in a real
requirement as a "may".

The NOTEs have been modified to eliminate any guidance and to refer to the 

Keith Scott (Approve with Conditions): I concur with Tomaso that a
note stating the non-applicability of this specification to
Proximity-2 communications would be quite helpful.

Tomaso de Cola (Approve with Conditions): As the book relates to
security implemented in the data link layer of CCSDS protocol stack,
I would expect a note or comment in Section 1 to state that the
scope of the book is limited to AOS, TM, and TC and does not address
Proximity. Finding no mention of proximity leaves some uncertainty
on the overall security implementation in SDLP.

A statement to this effect has been added to paragraph 2.1.

Note for future book amendments, the green book CCSDS 350.0-G-2 (THE
TO SECURE SYSTEMS ) will probably require some minor revision to
reflect the changes provided in this blue book, once published.

Total Respondents: 9
No response was received from the following Area(s):


PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            Generate CMC poll after
conditions have been addressed
CESG mailing list
CESG at mailman.ccsds.org

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/20150828/79dd2125/attachment.html>

More information about the CESG mailing list