[CESG] CESG-P-2021-08-006 Approval to publish CCSDS 732.0-B-4, AOS Space Data Link Protocol (Blue Book, Issue 4)

[CCSDS Secretariat]

Dear CESG Members,

Conditions for approval of CCSDS 732.0-B-4, AOS Space Data Link 
Protocol (Blue Book, Issue 4) have been disposed to the satisfaction 
of the AD(s) who voted to approve with conditions. The Secretariat 
will now proceed with CMC polling to authorize publication.
-------------- next part --------------
From:	Wilmot, Jonathan J. (GSFC-5800) <jonathan.j.wilmot at nasa.gov>
Sent:	Monday, September 20, 2021 2:27 PM
To:	Kazz, Greg J (JPL-312B)[JPL Employee]; Thomas Gannett
Subject:	RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: CESG-P-2021-08-004 Approval to publish CCSDS 132.0-B-
3, TM  Space Data Link Protocol (Blue Book, Issue 3)

Categories:	Poll Condition Closure

Greg,

    Agreed. Condition is closed.


   Kind regards,

         Jonathan

Jonathan Wilmot
NASA/GSFC 
Code 580 Senior Engineer for Flight Systems
cFS Software Architect
CCSDS SOIS Area Director
Office 301-286-2623
Cell 301-751-2658



From: Kazz, Greg J (US 312B) <greg.j.kazz at jpl.nasa.gov>  
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2021 2:48 PM 
To: Thomas Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>; Wilmot, Jonathan J. (GSFC-5800) 
<jonathan.j.wilmot at nasa.gov> 
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: CESG-P-2021-08-004 Approval to publish CCSDS 132.0-B-3, TM Space Data 
Link Protocol (Blue Book, Issue 3)

Hi Jonathan,

I agree with you that the following text goes beyond what the TM SDLP standard should assert here.

FROM: This service is made available to trusted users who are certified during the design process to 
ensure that the independently created protocol data units do not violate the operational integrity of the 
space link.

TO: Delete that sentence in both 2.2.3.6 and 2.2.3.9

Basically we can’t make assumptions about the existence of such a certification process by member 
agencies. And “operational integrity” is a very loaded concept which could mean there is plenty of link 
margin available to ensure a low FER, etc…and/or other considerations way beyond the scope of this 
document.The service is really just outlined in this section and defined in Section 3. Therefore, the best 
course here is simply to delete this sentence in both non-normative sections.

Also same for your similar AOS 732.0-B condition as well - 


What do you think of that resolution ?


Thanks! 
Greg

From: Thomas Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net> 
Date: Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 11:05 AM 
To: "Kazz, Greg J (US 312B)" <greg.j.kazz at jpl.nasa.gov> 
Cc: "jonathan.j.wilmot at nasa.gov" <jonathan.j.wilmot at nasa.gov> 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: CESG-P-2021-08-004 Approval to publish CCSDS 132.0-B-3, TM Space 
Data Link Protocol (Blue Book, Issue 3)

Dear Document Rapporteur,

The CESG poll to approve publication of CCSDS 132.0-B-3, TM Space 
Data Link Protocol (Blue Book, Issue 3) concluded with conditions. 
Please negotiate disposition of the conditions directly with the 
AD(s) who voted to approve with conditions and CC the Secretariat on 
all related correspondence.


CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2021-08-004 Approval to publish CCSDS 
132.0-B-3, TM Space Data Link Protocol (Blue Book, Issue 3)
Results of CESG poll beginning 31 August 2021 and ending 14 September 2021:

                 Abstain:  0 (0%) Approve Unconditionally:  5 
(83.33%) (Barkley, Duhaze, Shames, Aguilar Sanchez, Moury)
Approve with Conditions:  1 (16.67%) (Wilmot)
Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

     Jonathan Wilmot (Approve with Conditions):  2.2.3.6 Virtual 
Channel Frame (VCF) Service  and 2.2.3.9 Master Channel Frame (MCF) 
Service, "This service is made available to trusted users who are 
certified" implies an undefined trust and certification process. An 
alternate and more secure design would be that the VCF/MCF service 
itself reject user frames that "violate the operational integrity of 
the space link". It is not clear why the standard had to include a 
note about not having errors in the design/implementation and then 
not having the service check inputs for correctness.  Checking inputs 
for correctness is typically a software requirement and secure coding practice.


Total Respondents:  6

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

     SIS



SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Approved with Conditions
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            Generate CMC poll after 
conditions have been addressed

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Thomas Gannett
thomas.gannett at tgannett.net
+1 443 472 0805