[CESG] [EXTERNAL] IGCA CESG Approval
Shames, Peter M (US 312B)
peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov
Mon Sep 16 18:58:16 UTC 2024
Hi Ignacio (and Tomaso),
You raise an interesting question about the difference between Yellow Books that are merely “reports” and Yellow Books that actually levy normative requirements on CCSDS itself.
If you look in the “CCSDS Bible”, A02x1y4c2, in sec 6.1.6, Administrative Track documents, you will see that a YB may just be a report, such as a test or meeting report, but it may also be used to document CCSDS Procedures. As it says:
This document is a CCSDS Yellow Book and it is a controlling document describing CCSDS procedures.
Yellow Books shall be used to document the test plans and test reports produced in support of CCSDS Blue Book interoperability testing. Yellow Books may also be used to document CCSDS internal processes, procedures, and controlling guidelines. This document is itself a CCSDS Yellow Book, and it is a controlling document describing CCSDS procedures. Any CCSDS Yellow Book that is normative upon CCSDS itself requires CESG and CMC approval polling.
So the “CCSDS Bible” is a YB, and so are the SANA Procedures and Policies, since they are normative on CCSDS and document how we operate. Likewise the CCSDS Publications manual and the guidelines for PICS Pro-Forma.
This IGCA, however, is intended to define a security architecture that may be implemented by agencies, or other organizational entities. As such it is a draft standard in much the same way that the MOIMS DAI books are an architecture for data archive development and operation.
I hope this helps explain why things are as they are. We could, I suppose, make these “normative on CCSDS” documents a different color, but CCSDS already looks like a rainbow. What other color might you adopt? Puce? Brown? Black? Fluorescent yellow/green? Stripes?
Cheers, Peter
From: Ignacio Aguilar Sanchez <Ignacio.Aguilar.Sanchez at esa.int>
Date: Monday, September 16, 2024 at 12:52 AM
To: Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de <Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de>, thomas.gannett at tgannett.net <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>, Shames, Peter M (US 312B) <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>, charles.j.sheehe at nasa.gov <charles.j.sheehe at nasa.gov>, Howard.Weiss at parsons.us <Howard.Weiss at parsons.us>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] IGCA CESG Approval
Dear all,
I support Tomaso’s suggestion.
Apologies if I bring back a colour question.
As I mentioned in one of my remarks, the colour of this book looked to me more Yellow than any other colour based on its similarity to the SANA Yellow Book.
Peter mentioned three Magenta Books from MOIMS DAI that looked similar.
What led CCSDS to decide a Yellow colour for the SANA Book?
Kind regards,
Ignacio
Ignacio Aguilar Sánchez
Communication Systems Engineer
Electrical Engineering Department
European Space Research and Technology Centre
Keplerlaan 1, PO Box 299, 2200 AG Noordwijk, The Netherlands
Mob.+31641360257
Fax +31715655418
Email: ignacio.aguilar.sanchez at esa.int<mailto:ignacio.aguilar.sanchez at esa.int>
www.esa.int<https://urldefense.us/v3/__http:/www.esa.int/__;!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!KhPWBC_Q5bcPOisJCHAX9ToYnS2G46ApkhWgP0--0hzYMWuqpAgSVLc5gbeeW0ER1xwo5-YLvUZQZFV28boKzXCMUEE48TvSxKre$>
From: Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de <Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de>
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2024 6:16 PM
To: thomas.gannett at tgannett.net; peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov; charles.j.sheehe at nasa.gov; Howard.Weiss at parsons.us
Cc: Ignacio Aguilar Sanchez <Ignacio.Aguilar.Sanchez at esa.int>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] IGCA CESG Approval
Dear Tom,
If so then I’d be in favour of improving the text of the yellow book to avoid any ambiguity. This could be an opportunity to check also other sections of the book that may need a refresh (just guessing…).
Regards,
Tomaso
From: Thomas Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net<mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>>
Sent: Freitag, 13. September 2024 17:45
To: de Cola, Tomaso <Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de<mailto:Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de>>; peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>; charles.j.sheehe at nasa.gov<mailto:charles.j.sheehe at nasa.gov>; Howard.Weiss at parsons.us<mailto:Howard.Weiss at parsons.us>
Cc: Ignacio.Aguilar.Sanchez at esa.int<mailto:Ignacio.Aguilar.Sanchez at esa.int>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] IGCA CESG Approval
Dear Tomaso:
Our procedures were not bestowed upon us by Providence. We wrote them. There was never any intension to exclude Magenta-type specifications from the experimental path; it simply did not occur to anyone at the time to state explicitly that Magenta-type specifications could be preserved as Orange Books, which category of book was created to preserve good engineering that lacked multi-agency support and thus prevent having to recreate it later. Beyond that, the notion of what a Magenta Book is has evolved considerably since the procedures text about Orange Books was written.
So I would say if our procedures document appears to prohibit our doing things in the best interests of CCSDS, then our procedures document should be fixed, and in the meantime should not stand as an impediment to getting things done.
Best regards,
Tom
Logothete, L.L.C.
thomas.gannett at tgannett.net<mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>
+1 443 472 0805
From: Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de<mailto:Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de> [mailto:Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de]
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2024 4:32 AM
To: peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>; charles.j.sheehe at nasa.gov<mailto:charles.j.sheehe at nasa.gov>; thomas.gannett at tgannett.net<mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>; Howard.Weiss at parsons.us<mailto:Howard.Weiss at parsons.us>
Cc: Ignacio.Aguilar.Sanchez at esa.int<mailto:Ignacio.Aguilar.Sanchez at esa.int>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] IGCA CESG Approval
Hi Peter,
As mentioned in a former exchange in August I think, my concerns are more from a formal viewpoint. It was and is still fully clear to me that the content of this book is towards a future magenta book and content-wise I’m not against it. However I’m afraid CCSDS A02.1-Y-4 is considering the transition from orange to blue only. In more detail the CCSDS A02.1-Y-4 book in Annex B2.2 states that:
Experimental work may be based on soft or “prospective” requirements; i.e., it may be looking into the future and may intend to demonstrate technical feasibility in anticipation of a hard requirement that has not
yet emerged. This designation therefore allows the work to progress roughly to the equivalent technical status of a Draft Recommended Standard without being actually on the Normative Track and therefore consuming large amounts of CCSDS resources. Experimental work may be rapidly transferred onto the Normative Track if a hard requirement emerges, thus shortening the response time in satisfying the new customer.
This clearly points to a draft recommended standard (blue book), while it does not mention the case of a draft recommended practice (magenta book). It is certainly true that then finally it is said that can be “rapidly transferred onto the normative track”, where in fact a normative track includes both magenta and blue books. However Figure 6.1 at the beginning of Section 6 clearly shows a relation between orange and blue books, but not with magenta books:
[cid:image001.png at 01DB081D.8D66A5F0]
If instead we (CESG) all think that orange books could be for possible future blue or magenta books, I’m also fine but we need to update the yellow books to avoid the confusion that lead us to this discussion. In this sense, then probably we should also update the statement still in Annex B2.2 about the necessary condition to report on the existence of a prototype:
As a general rule, prior to publication at least one hardware or software prototype (or other implementation) must exist that demonstrates and exercises all of the options and features of the specification in an operationally relevant environment, either real or simulated.
This clearly makes sense in the current orientation of orange books, i.e. towards possible future blue books, but probably not for magenta books for which no prototypes are expected to grant their approval and consequent publication.
Regards,
Tomaso
From: Shames, Peter M (US 312B) <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Sent: Mittwoch, 11. September 2024 23:10
To: Sheehe, Charles J. (GRC-LCN0) <charles.j.sheehe at nasa.gov<mailto:charles.j.sheehe at nasa.gov>>; Thomas Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net<mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>>; Howard.Weiss at parsons.us<mailto:Howard.Weiss at parsons.us>
Cc: de Cola, Tomaso <Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de<mailto:Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de>>; Ignacio Sanchez-Aguillar <Ignacio.Aguilar.Sanchez at esa.int<mailto:Ignacio.Aguilar.Sanchez at esa.int>>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] IGCA CESG Approval
Thanks Chuck.
Let’s see what response we get from Ignacio and Tomaso. We won’t move ahead with these changes to the document until we know that they concur.
Thanks, Peter
From: Sheehe, Charles J. (GRC-LCN0) <charles.j.sheehe at nasa.gov<mailto:charles.j.sheehe at nasa.gov>>
Date: Wednesday, September 11, 2024 at 1:00 PM
To: Shames, Peter M (US 312B) <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>>, Thomas Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net<mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>>, Howard.Weiss at parsons.us<mailto:Howard.Weiss at parsons.us> <Howard.Weiss at parsons.us<mailto:Howard.Weiss at parsons.us>>
Cc: Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de<mailto:Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de> <Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de<mailto:Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de>>, Ignacio Sanchez-Aguillar <Ignacio.Aguilar.Sanchez at esa.int<mailto:Ignacio.Aguilar.Sanchez at esa.int>>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] IGCA CESG Approval
Hi
I am ok with and understand the comments.
I do agree that it is in a weird spot and needs to be built, in order to solidify processes, documentation and requirements.
I sent to Howie and Tom what I understood needed to be done from the e-mail chain. Tom sent back an e-mail that he will maintain control and make the proper changes.
Aside:
I think I am maybe missing something about the X509, that is in a different document I think, and would require an update to that document.
I will do what you all think best on this effort.
Thanks
Chuck
Charles J. Sheehe III
Computer Engineer
Secure Networks, System
Integration and Test Branch (LCN)
Glenn Research Center
21000 Brookpark Rd
Cleveland, OH 44135
Charles.J.Sheehe at NASA.GOV<mailto:Charles.J.Sheehe at NASA.GOV> Email
Charles.J.Sheehe at NSS.SGov.Gov<mailto:Charles.J.Sheehe at NSS.SGov.Gov> SIPRmail
Charles.Sheehe at NASA.IC.Gov<mailto:Charles.Sheehe at NASA.IC.Gov>
Office: 216-433-5179
There are two ways to design a system. One is to make it so simple there are obviously no deficiencies.
The other is to make it so complex there are no obvious deficiencies.
- C. A. R. Hoare
From: Shames, Peter M (US 312B) <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2024 2:56 PM
To: Sheehe, Charles J. (GRC-LCN0) <charles.j.sheehe at nasa.gov<mailto:charles.j.sheehe at nasa.gov>>; Thomas Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net<mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>>; Howard.Weiss at parsons.us<mailto:Howard.Weiss at parsons.us>
Cc: Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de<mailto:Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de>; Ignacio Sanchez-Aguillar <Ignacio.Aguilar.Sanchez at esa.int<mailto:Ignacio.Aguilar.Sanchez at esa.int>>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] IGCA CESG Approval
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of NASA. Please take care when clicking links or opening attachments. Use the "Report Message" button to report suspicious messages to the NASA SOC.
Hi Chuck,
I just reviewed the draft OB again, in the light of the feedback from the CESG review and this email trail.
I agree with Howie, and Ignacio, that we should review, and update as appropriate, the X.509 currency.
I also agree with Ignacio that this is a somewhat unusual CCSDS document. And I will note that it’s nature it is very close to a couple of the existing MOIMS DAI WG MB documents, such as:
CCSDS 650.0-M-2<https://urldefense.us/v3/__https:/gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https*3A*2F*2Fpublic.ccsds.org*2FPubs*2F650x0m2.pdf&data=05*7C02*7Cpeter.m.shames*40jpl.nasa.gov*7C0a437d6b42ca441b977108dcd29c0f43*7C7005d45845be48ae8140d43da96dd17b*7C0*7C0*7C638616816103811341*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C0*7C*7C*7C&sdata=J9Bvw*2BTZCIJ*2BgxhqLT*2BXw2eHKg*2BScCNCnuDE*2FRfCpGY*3D&reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSU!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!IoLAb883bCU1s_uLZ0chegpLGQvUCiCxEvrG00i2WvCPqPCUoPbf675qijjIPx5X4xnQb0vzxGUagcXvkn7ae0OQWg5dglj6$>
Reference Model for an Open Archival Information System (OAIS)
And the related …
CCSDS 652.0-M-1<https://urldefense.us/v3/__https:/gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https*3A*2F*2Fpublic.ccsds.org*2FPubs*2F652x0m1.pdf&data=05*7C02*7Cpeter.m.shames*40jpl.nasa.gov*7C0a437d6b42ca441b977108dcd29c0f43*7C7005d45845be48ae8140d43da96dd17b*7C0*7C0*7C638616816103811341*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C0*7C*7C*7C&sdata=LyhsPjmIPUABNVjMIIa5*2BwM4qO*2FMcl3oZsGfh0MYoNw*3D&reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSU!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!IoLAb883bCU1s_uLZ0chegpLGQvUCiCxEvrG00i2WvCPqPCUoPbf675qijjIPx5X4xnQb0vzxGUagcXvkn7ae0OQWiMEueRF$>
Audit and Certification of Trustworthy Digital Repositories
CCSDS 652.1-M-2<https://urldefense.us/v3/__https:/gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https*3A*2F*2Fpublic.ccsds.org*2FPubs*2F652x1m2.pdf&data=05*7C02*7Cpeter.m.shames*40jpl.nasa.gov*7C0a437d6b42ca441b977108dcd29c0f43*7C7005d45845be48ae8140d43da96dd17b*7C0*7C0*7C638616816103811341*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C0*7C*7C*7C&sdata=xJK8F7hVfoTdVLGYwYOzH4BeuHaUIGsYphDCvtNMH*2B8*3D&reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJQ!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!IoLAb883bCU1s_uLZ0chegpLGQvUCiCxEvrG00i2WvCPqPCUoPbf675qijjIPx5X4xnQb0vzxGUagcXvkn7ae0OQWrMAzhFm$>
Requirements for Bodies Providing Audit and Certification of Candidate Trustworthy Digital Repositories
In much the same way that the IGCA is an overview architecture, process, and high level requirements driven document, the OAIS is similarly constructed. The initial OAIS document was found to be valuable by the digital archive community because it provided a useful set of concepts and a conceptual architecture, as well as identifying the use of some specific standards for certain data exchanges. The MOIMS DAI WG has elaborated upon this over time and then added these audit and certification documents.
To reach closure on Tomaso’s concerns, I will note that as a “Magenta Book-style” Orange Book it does not require either a prototype or a PICS. Here too, the existing MOIMS OAIS MB document series provides examples of what has been accepted in a similar context. I have argued separately (copied below) that the CCSDS “Bible” identifies that Orange Books should be formulated as “Normative Track” documents without explicitly excluding Magenta Books, which are also Normative Track.
In my opinion this IGCA concept might well follow a similar path to the OAIS, starting with this Orange Book. I think we all agree that this is not yet at the level of maturity expected of a Blue Book, nor even, as yet, of a Magenta Book. But I believe that it is a valuable concept and, once these technical concerns have been dealt with, worthy of publication as an Orange Book so as to permit further exploration and evaluation.
I would, in addition, recommend that development of a prototype should be one of the next investments, and that consideration be given to the development of a separate “Audit and Certification” document as well as firming up the existing IGCA architecture itself, as a result of the prototyping effort.
Best regards, Peter
From: Sheehe, Charles J. (GRC-LCN0) <charles.j.sheehe at nasa.gov<mailto:charles.j.sheehe at nasa.gov>>
Date: Wednesday, September 11, 2024 at 7:13 AM
To: Shames, Peter M (US 312B) <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>>, Thomas Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net<mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>>, Howard.Weiss at parsons.us<mailto:Howard.Weiss at parsons.us> <Howard.Weiss at parsons.us<mailto:Howard.Weiss at parsons.us>>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] IGCA CESG Approval
Thanks Peter
Just getting back.
I am fine with dropping the PICs
The latest rev to 9 will review to ensure no impact.
I will go through the requirements section and indicate how they will be verified.
May I put verification in the document in that section?
Thanks
Chuck
Charles J. Sheehe III
Computer Engineer
Secure Networks, System
Integration and Test Branch (LCN)
Glenn Research Center
21000 Brookpark Rd
Cleveland, OH 44135
Charles.J.Sheehe at NASA.GOV<mailto:Charles.J.Sheehe at NASA.GOV> Email
Charles.J.Sheehe at NSS.SGov.Gov<mailto:Charles.J.Sheehe at NSS.SGov.Gov> SIPRmail
Charles.Sheehe at NASA.IC.Gov<mailto:Charles.Sheehe at NASA.IC.Gov>
Office: 216-433-5179
There are two ways to design a system. One is to make it so simple there are obviously no deficiencies.
The other is to make it so complex there are no obvious deficiencies.
- C. A. R. Hoare
From: Shames, Peter M (US 312B) <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2024 2:44 PM
To: Thomas Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net<mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>>; Howard.Weiss at parsons.us<mailto:Howard.Weiss at parsons.us>
Cc: Sheehe, Charles J. (GRC-LCN0) <charles.j.sheehe at nasa.gov<mailto:charles.j.sheehe at nasa.gov>>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] IGCA CESG Approval
Hi Guys,
As Tom anticipated, I do have “something to add” vis-à-vis the Magenta to Orange aspect.
First off, the way this document is written is to have content that is more typical of a Magenta Book, i.e. process, architecture, or recommended practice than it is Blue Book, i.e. directly implementable. I made this judgement based on the contents of the document, as I do with all documents I am asked to review.
As a Magenta Book there is really no expectation of it being directly implementable in the way that a protocol or data exchange spec would be, so there is no anticipated need for 2 interoperable implementations. It could be argued that this might be treated as a Blue Book of the form “Utilization Profile”, see YB Sec B1.1.a.3. Here too, I do not think this document, in its current form, is sufficiently “normative” to meet that test.
Hence the proposal to publish it as an Orange Book. It does meet that test, as documented in Sec B2.2.
I will further note that Sec B2.2 is a little ambiguous, since it references “the equivalent technical status of a Draft Recommended Standard” once, without ever saying “it must be a Blue Book”. It also references, twice, “Experimental work may be rapidly transferred onto the Normative Track”, without further stating that it is a Blue Book Normative Track document. It could equally well be a Magenta Track Normative document.
I think that these statements, in Sec B2.2, are really the salient ones:
it is not necessary to demonstrate broad support across the CCSDS community before a WG to produce an Experimental Specification is approved; one organization could volunteer to perform experimental work independently, provided that the Area Director is convinced that it is a positive contribution toward the work of CCSDS and that sufficient resources exist to produce a meaningful result. Demonstration of the work being a “positive contribution” is most important; a WG will not be allowed to form unless it has demonstrated that the proposed experimental work is architecturally relevant to CCSDS and will not be disruptive to the installed base if eventually implemented.
Based on that I continue to support the request to publish this as an Orange Book, to get these concepts out and into view, with the expectation that further work will be done to either demonstrate the value, either in Magenta (or preferably Blue) form or to abandon the project because it is found wanting.
Best regards, Peter
From: Thomas Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net<mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>>
Date: Monday, September 9, 2024 at 8:18 AM
To: Howard.Weiss at parsons.us<mailto:Howard.Weiss at parsons.us> <Howard.Weiss at parsons.us<mailto:Howard.Weiss at parsons.us>>
Cc: 'Sheehe, Charles J. (GRC-LCN0)' <charles.j.sheehe at nasa.gov<mailto:charles.j.sheehe at nasa.gov>>, Shames, Peter M (US 312B) <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] IGCA CESG Approval
Howie:
You may regard me as the choir. Procedurally, however, every condition needs to be explicitly resolved to the satisfaction of the AD who voted to approve with conditions, and my purpose in sending the advance warning yesterday was to give the WG a little extra time to prepare responses. I am CCing Peter, since he will have something to add on the Magenta-to-Orange aspect. My position is, it’s not not allowed, but there are indeed some Org&Procs requirements that assume all Orange Books are Blue by nature.
Tom
Logothete, L.L.C.
thomas.gannett at tgannett.net<mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>
+1 443 472 0805
From: Howard.Weiss at parsons.us<mailto:Howard.Weiss at parsons.us> [mailto:Howard.Weiss at parsons.us]
Sent: Monday, September 09, 2024 11:08 AM
To: Thomas Gannett
Cc: 'Sheehe, Charles J. (GRC-LCN0)'; Howard.Weiss at parsons.us<mailto:Howard.Weiss at parsons.us>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] IGCA CESG Approval
Hi Tom,
I am usually sympathetic to Tomaso's MINOR1 issue - I have been beaten up over the years regarding poorly worded, compound, or untestable requirements. However, in this case, my thought is that, at least for 3.3.3, this would be verifiable by 'observation.'
Chuck - can you go through the rest of the 'shall' statement to determine how they would be verified?
As for Ignacio's comment regarding the version of X.509, we had an out-of-band email thread on that same subject. I guess we should do some due diligence to ensure that any changes in the newer versions of X.509 don't have any appreciable effects on our document. And if there are not effects, we should simply upgrade the reference.
Regarding the change from Magenta -> Orange, that was not our own doing and rather was instigated by Peter to gain some traction by publishing a document with the hope that if we publish, they will come. The intent was to eliminate the need for 2 independent implementations, the need to write an accompanying Green Book (by putting a lot of the non-normative GB info in section 2), and to get the concept in front of the other member Agencies.
Thanks,
howie
________________________________
From: Thomas Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net<mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>>
Sent: Sunday, September 8, 2024 2:12 PM
To: Weiss, Howard [US-US] <Howard.Weiss at parsons.us<mailto:Howard.Weiss at parsons.us>>
Cc: 'Sheehe, Charles J. (GRC-LCN0)' <charles.j.sheehe at nasa.gov<mailto:charles.j.sheehe at nasa.gov>>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] IGCA CESG Approval
Howie:
The CESG IGCA poll failed to achieve quorum and has been extended by one week.
In the meantime, of the three votes obtained so far, two are “Approve with Conditions” (see below).
Tomaso’s “MAJOR” condition is essentially a red herring: what he says of the procedures is true, but the procedures assume all Orange Books are experimental standards. Since this is an Orange practice, and since Magenta Books do not yield the sort of implementations for which the procedural requirement was intended, Tomaso will have to be cajoled to withdraw that particular condition (I will contact him about it after the extended poll closes).
Concerning his MINOR2 condition, in fact, Magenta Books do not normally include a PICS; I would propose deleting it.
Tomaso’s MINOR1 condition and Ignacio’s condition are yours to ponder (Ignacio’s remark 1 also wrestles with the unusual circumstance of attempting to make a Magenta Book Orange).
Tom
SEA-AD Peter Shames APPROVE UNCONDITIONALLY
8/22/2024 1:26 PM
SIS-AD Tomaso de Cola APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS (state conditions that must be satisfied)
MINOR1: some requirements listed in section 3 sound to me a bit vague and not so easy get verified. For instance clause 3.3.3 states that "The IGCA and affiliated CAs shall have reviewed and agreed-upon operational
protection policies.". How can this be verified? Same considerations may hold also for other requirements.
MINOR2: If I'm not wrong NPICS (as shown in Annex A) is a requirement for blue books, not for orange (though certainly not prohibited).
MAJOR: According to our org&proc yellow book in Annex B2.2, it is stated that "prior to publication at least one hardware or software prototype (or other implementation) must exist that demonstrates and exercises all of the options and features of the specification in an operationally relevant environment, either real
or simulated. The WG chair shall assure that the specific implementations that qualify the specification for CCSDS experimental status are documented in an annex to the
specification; that documentation shall include clear statements about support for each of the individual options and features of the specification". The present version of the book indeed includes an annex about a "possible implementation example", but does not describe an existing implementation, but provides a scenario in which the proposed concept could be implemented. In general, the "concept" of an orange book is that at some point could mature to a blue book, while here I've the impression that in some parts the document this is really bluish, but in other is more Magenta-style.
SLS-AD Ignacio Aguilar Sanchez APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS (state conditions that must be satisfied)
Please find attached a PID: Its disposition is my condition for approval of this poll. [attached below]
Furthermore, I would like to share a couple of remarks:
1. This document is targeting an organisation, not a protocol or data structure or service. The only other CCSDS document I could find with a similar target is the CCSDS 313.0-Y-3 SANA Yellow Book. Hence, this Orange Book is quite exceptional.
2. At the core of this Orange Book is the CCSDS 357.0-B-1 Authentication Credentials Blue Book. This standard relies on the following ISO standard:
Information Technology—Open Systems Interconnection—The Directory: Public-Key and Attribute Certificate Frameworks. 7th ed. International Standard, ISO/IEC 9594-8:2014. Geneva: ISO, 2014.
Such standard has an equivalent ITU-T standard known as X.509. You can find it here: https://www.itu.int/ITU-T/recommendations/rec.aspx?rec=14033&lang=en [itu.int]<https://urldefense.us/v3/__https:/gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https*3A*2F*2Furldefense.us*2Fv3*2F__https*3A*2Fgcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com*2F*3Furl*3Dhttps*3A*2F*2Furldefense.us*2Fv3*2F__https*3A*2Furldefense.com*2Fv3*2F__https*3A*2Fwww.itu.int*2FITU-T*2Frecommendations*2Frec.aspx*3Frec*3D14033*26lang*3Den__*3B!!NFAdMAnI0yk!H8jVJLU5V5hgQ1yAbyJYMvmY7M4ua0dP-Cn6j7wS7w7IrRRC40cjf9TiWHUZHavpPbFqoZRbOBQasKJXnHdMOfBvWfa6nBzL*24__*3B!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!LPyJlJrGyTszqVt-a-29iGdL8Q0WZzhTmkLsNSyGX3iFxdsit3wLcEqoEtngVwUmqbkMoyvtxyEOWRFWwilvGM5_rtIEf16AuN4*24*26data*3D05*7C02*7Cpeter.m.shames*40jpl.nasa.gov*7C8c640699edbd48eaae2208dcd26be4a6*7C7005d45845be48ae8140d43da96dd17b*7C0*7C0*7C638616608122313651*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C0*7C*7C*7C*26sdata*3DOKJjZ2nzID0O*2FBHKHfYvHp*2BsLKMGS9Aub74GuXf2vRk*3D*26reserved*3D0__*3BJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJQ!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!JILkqigl7AZSVeohjfrNn2FME7VThRvL_nudFD5oDOViVm6sR1j37gf7IAZ1rZi656qQbgKppRoYiUwDSyb-G4C50MidckDz*24&data=05*7C02*7Cpeter.m.shames*40jpl.nasa.gov*7C0a437d6b42ca441b977108dcd29c0f43*7C7005d45845be48ae8140d43da96dd17b*7C0*7C0*7C638616816103811341*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C0*7C*7C*7C&sdata=sqNGTM3sa2WEIDx5aEHSGNgEmNbrlu7x5Q*2BBzn5beY0*3D&reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSoqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKiolJSoqKioqKioqKioqKioqKiUlKioqJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUl!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!IoLAb883bCU1s_uLZ0chegpLGQvUCiCxEvrG00i2WvCPqPCUoPbf675qijjIPx5X4xnQb0vzxGUagcXvkn7ae0OQWjgGpY87$>
As part of my involvement on a related ESA Project in support of asymmetric key management for space links, we are examining both CCSDS 357.0-B-1 and ITU-T X.509 and noticed that such ISO/ITU-T standard has evolved. The change record is visible at the ¨History¨ section at the early pages with corresponding weblinks to past versions and corrigenda.
To my understanding the CCSDS Authentication Credentials Blue Book was referring to edition 7. The latest published version is edition 9, with a couple of corrigenda.
Given the importance of the subject and the 5-year review cycle for the CCSDS Authentication Credentials Blue Book (published in 2019), I would recommend initiating it, including a detailed examination of the X.509 update.
CESG POLL ITEM DISPOSITION (PID) INITIATION FORM
AREA PID NUMBER: 01
SUBMITTING AREA: Space Link Services
------------------------------------------------------------------
REVIEWER'S NAME: Ignacio AGUILAR SANCHEZ
E-MAIL ADDRESS: ignacio.aguilar.sanchez at esa.int<mailto:ignacio.aguilar.sanchez at esa.int>
------------------------------------------------------------------
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 357.1-O-0
DOCUMENT NAME: Intergovernmental Certification Authority
DATE ISSUED: August 2024
PAGE NUMBER: 2-2 PARAGRAPH NUMBER:
PID SHORT TITLE: Provision of PKI keys to CCSDS protocols
------------------------------------------------------------------
DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED CHANGE: (Use From: "..." To "..." format)
From:
¨The IGCA provides trust and PKI keys that can be used to facilitate the operation of CCSDS protocols such as Space Data Link Security (SDLS) and Delay Tolerant Networking (DTN) Bundle Protocol Security (BPSec) or secured service interfaces. ¨
To:
¨The IGCA provides trust and PKI keys that can be used to facilitate the operation of CCSDS security protocols or secured service interfaces. ¨
------------------------------------------------------------------
CATEGORY OF REQUESTED CHANGE:
Technical Fact _X_ Recommended ___ Editorial ___
NOTES:
TECHNICAL FACT: Major technical change of sufficient magnitude as to
render the Recommendation inaccurate and unacceptable if not
corrected. (Supporting analysis/rationale is essential.)
RECOMMENDED: Change of a nature that would, if incorporated, produce
a marked improvement in document quality and acceptance.
EDITORIAL: Typographical or other factual error needing correction.
(This type of change will be made without feedback to submitter.)
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUPPORTING ANALYSIS:
The facts are that today CCSDS is working to define asymmetric key management for the CCSDS Space Data Link Security as well as publishing the DTN Bundle Security Protocol (BPSec).
Strictly speaking, a provision of PKI keys would not be needed as no one could use them. Yet, we at CCSDS are working towards that goal in all fronts.
The proposed edition of the sentence would avoid such inconsistencies.
------------------------------------------------------------------
DISPOSITION:
Logothete, L.L.C.
thomas.gannett at tgannett.net<mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>
+1 443 472 0805
From: Sheehe, Charles J. (GRC-LCN0) [mailto:charles.j.sheehe at nasa.gov]
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 3:28 PM
To: Thomas Gannett
Cc: Howard.Weiss at parsons.us<mailto:Howard.Weiss at parsons.us>
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] IGCA CESG Approval
Hi
Had our proof reader go through the book. The came up with a few nits nothing to change anything.
Thanks
Chuck
Charles J. Sheehe III
Computer Engineer
Secure Networks, System
Integration and Test Branch (LCN)
Glenn Research Center
21000 Brookpark Rd
Cleveland, OH 44135
Charles.J.Sheehe at NASA.GOV<mailto:Charles.J.Sheehe at NASA.GOV> Email
Charles.J.Sheehe at NSS.SGov.Gov<mailto:Charles.J.Sheehe at NSS.SGov.Gov> SIPRmail
Charles.Sheehe at NASA.IC.Gov<mailto:Charles.Sheehe at NASA.IC.Gov>
Office: 216-433-5179
There are two ways to design a system. One is to make it so simple there are obviously no deficiencies.
The other is to make it so complex there are no obvious deficiencies.
- C. A. R. Hoare
From: Kirkby, Debra L. (GRC-V000)[eMITS] <debra.l.kirkby at nasa.gov<mailto:debra.l.kirkby at nasa.gov>>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 1:23 PM
To: Sheehe, Charles J. (GRC-LCN0) <charles.j.sheehe at nasa.gov<mailto:charles.j.sheehe at nasa.gov>>
Cc: Greeney, Lisa A. (GRC-V000)[eMITS] <lisa.a.greeney at nasa.gov<mailto:lisa.a.greeney at nasa.gov>>
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] IGCA CESG Approval
Charles:
I’ve completed my grammar/spelling/punctuation review of the Orange Book (attached). You’ll note that I’ve used yellow highlights to identify words/sentences/phrases that would benefit from revision. I’ve also added a few comment bubbles for recommended additions, particularly for missing captions.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding the changes I’m suggesting. Lisa and I are hoping to complete and close this project as soon as possible.
[signature_3184380081]
Debra Kirkby
Technical Writer/Editor
ROAR | Rothe ARES JV
NASA Glenn Research Center
Cleveland, OH 44135
216-433-2489
debra.l.kirkby at nasa.gov<mailto:debra.l.kirkby at nasa.gov>
[cid:image003.png at 01DB081D.8D66A5F0]
From: Greeney, Lisa A. (GRC-V000)[eMITS] <lisa.a.greeney at nasa.gov<mailto:lisa.a.greeney at nasa.gov>>
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2024 6:29 AM
To: Kirkby, Debra L. (GRC-V000)[eMITS] <debra.l.kirkby at nasa.gov<mailto:debra.l.kirkby at nasa.gov>>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] IGCA CESG Approval
Yes
[signature_3184380081]
Lisa Greeney
Document Specialist (Layout)
ROAR | Rothe ARES JV
NASA Glenn Research Center
21000 Brookpark Rd.
Cleveland, OH 44135
Building 14, Room 122, Cubical #2
216.433.3506
Lisa.A.Greeney at nasa.gov<mailto:Lisa.A.Greeney at nasa.gov>
Schedule: August 19-23 [cid:image005.png at 01DB081D.8D66A5F0]
Onsite: M, W, F: 6:30 am to 2:30 pm
Teleworking: T, TH: 8:00 am to 4:30 pm
[cid:image006.png at 01DB081D.8D66A5F0][teams.microsoft.com]<https://urldefense.us/v3/__https:/gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https*3A*2F*2Furldefense.us*2Fv3*2F__https*3A*2Fgcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com*2F*3Furl*3Dhttps*3A*2F*2Furldefense.us*2Fv3*2F__https*3A*2Furldefense.com*2Fv3*2F__https*3A*2Fteams.microsoft.com*2Fl*2Fchat*2F0*2F0*3Fusers*3DLisa.A.Greeney*40nasa.gov__*3B!!NFAdMAnI0yk!H8jVJLU5V5hgQ1yAbyJYMvmY7M4ua0dP-Cn6j7wS7w7IrRRC40cjf9TiWHUZHavpPbFqoZRbOBQasKJXnHdMOfBvWfyB71F-*24__*3B!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!LPyJlJrGyTszqVt-a-29iGdL8Q0WZzhTmkLsNSyGX3iFxdsit3wLcEqoEtngVwUmqbkMoyvtxyEOWRFWwilvGM5_rtIEqOHg9p0*24*26data*3D05*7C02*7Cpeter.m.shames*40jpl.nasa.gov*7C8c640699edbd48eaae2208dcd26be4a6*7C7005d45845be48ae8140d43da96dd17b*7C0*7C0*7C638616608122313651*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C0*7C*7C*7C*26sdata*3DbEVt*2BXH9MBI8GyLQqaZ*2Bn8VVYlp0yaVmj6IiUn5MLZQ*3D*26reserved*3D0__*3BJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJQ!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!JILkqigl7AZSVeohjfrNn2FME7VThRvL_nudFD5oDOViVm6sR1j37gf7IAZ1rZi656qQbgKppRoYiUwDSyb-G4C50OrS21h_*24&data=05*7C02*7Cpeter.m.shames*40jpl.nasa.gov*7C0a437d6b42ca441b977108dcd29c0f43*7C7005d45845be48ae8140d43da96dd17b*7C0*7C0*7C638616816103811341*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C0*7C*7C*7C&sdata=qM2kt9RpeiYiWiTaDpYV6YSu6ye6R4GX8MJWNjqU52Q*3D&reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSoqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKiolJSoqKioqKioqKioqKioqKiUlKioqJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSU!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!IoLAb883bCU1s_uLZ0chegpLGQvUCiCxEvrG00i2WvCPqPCUoPbf675qijjIPx5X4xnQb0vzxGUagcXvkn7ae0OQWv3L3VGK$>
[cid:image007.png at 01DB081D.8D66A5F0]
From: Kirkby, Debra L. (GRC-V000)[eMITS] <debra.l.kirkby at nasa.gov<mailto:debra.l.kirkby at nasa.gov>>
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2024 8:20 PM
To: Greeney, Lisa A. (GRC-V000)[eMITS] <lisa.a.greeney at nasa.gov<mailto:lisa.a.greeney at nasa.gov>>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] IGCA CESG Approval
Lisa:
I’m trying to figure out if I’m looking at the right document. The folder I’m looking in is:
PS-04191 CSDS IGCA Orange Book Sheehe dk
The PDF you want me to look at is:
357x1o0_CESG_Approval
Is that correct? Please confirm before I get started on my review when I’m back in the office on Friday.
[signature_3184380081]
Debra Kirkby
Technical Writer/Editor
ROAR | Rothe ARES JV
NASA Glenn Research Center
Cleveland, OH 44135
216-433-2489
debra.l.kirkby at nasa.gov<mailto:debra.l.kirkby at nasa.gov>
[cid:image009.png at 01DB081D.8D66A5F0]
From: Greeney, Lisa A. (GRC-V000)[eMITS] <lisa.a.greeney at nasa.gov<mailto:lisa.a.greeney at nasa.gov>>
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2024 2:38 PM
To: Kirkby, Debra L. (GRC-V000)[eMITS] <debra.l.kirkby at nasa.gov<mailto:debra.l.kirkby at nasa.gov>>; Mason, Sandra (GRC-V000)[eMITS] <sandra.c.mason at nasa.gov<mailto:sandra.c.mason at nasa.gov>>; Feher, Lorraine C. (GRC-V000)[eMITS] <lorraine.c.feher at nasa.gov<mailto:lorraine.c.feher at nasa.gov>>
Cc: Sheehe, Charles J. (GRC-LCN0) <charles.j.sheehe at nasa.gov<mailto:charles.j.sheehe at nasa.gov>>
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] IGCA CESG Approval
Hi Deb,
Please let me know if the due date is possible to review the PDF that Chuck has sent.
* Please contact Chuck when you begin.
* He only has the PDF
* Due date is Tuesday, August 27
The file is on the server in PS-04191_IGCA CESG.
[signature_3184380081]
Lisa Greeney
Document Specialist (Layout)
ROAR | Rothe ARES JV
NASA Glenn Research Center
21000 Brookpark Rd.
Cleveland, OH 44135
Building 14, Room 122, Cubical #2
216.433.3506
Lisa.A.Greeney at nasa.gov<mailto:Lisa.A.Greeney at nasa.gov>
Schedule: August 19-23 [cid:image011.png at 01DB081D.8D66A5F0]
Onsite: M, W, F: 6:30 am to 2:30 pm
Teleworking: T, TH: 8:00 am to 4:30 pm
[cid:image012.png at 01DB081D.8D66A5F0][teams.microsoft.com]<https://urldefense.us/v3/__https:/gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https*3A*2F*2Furldefense.us*2Fv3*2F__https*3A*2Fgcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com*2F*3Furl*3Dhttps*3A*2F*2Furldefense.us*2Fv3*2F__https*3A*2Furldefense.com*2Fv3*2F__https*3A*2Fteams.microsoft.com*2Fl*2Fchat*2F0*2F0*3Fusers*3DLisa.A.Greeney*40nasa.gov__*3B!!NFAdMAnI0yk!H8jVJLU5V5hgQ1yAbyJYMvmY7M4ua0dP-Cn6j7wS7w7IrRRC40cjf9TiWHUZHavpPbFqoZRbOBQasKJXnHdMOfBvWfyB71F-*24__*3B!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!LPyJlJrGyTszqVt-a-29iGdL8Q0WZzhTmkLsNSyGX3iFxdsit3wLcEqoEtngVwUmqbkMoyvtxyEOWRFWwilvGM5_rtIEqOHg9p0*24*26data*3D05*7C02*7Cpeter.m.shames*40jpl.nasa.gov*7C8c640699edbd48eaae2208dcd26be4a6*7C7005d45845be48ae8140d43da96dd17b*7C0*7C0*7C638616608122313651*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C0*7C*7C*7C*26sdata*3DbEVt*2BXH9MBI8GyLQqaZ*2Bn8VVYlp0yaVmj6IiUn5MLZQ*3D*26reserved*3D0__*3BJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJQ!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!JILkqigl7AZSVeohjfrNn2FME7VThRvL_nudFD5oDOViVm6sR1j37gf7IAZ1rZi656qQbgKppRoYiUwDSyb-G4C50OrS21h_*24&data=05*7C02*7Cpeter.m.shames*40jpl.nasa.gov*7C0a437d6b42ca441b977108dcd29c0f43*7C7005d45845be48ae8140d43da96dd17b*7C0*7C0*7C638616816103811341*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C0*7C*7C*7C&sdata=qM2kt9RpeiYiWiTaDpYV6YSu6ye6R4GX8MJWNjqU52Q*3D&reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSoqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKiolJSoqKioqKioqKioqKioqKiUlKioqJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSU!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!IoLAb883bCU1s_uLZ0chegpLGQvUCiCxEvrG00i2WvCPqPCUoPbf675qijjIPx5X4xnQb0vzxGUagcXvkn7ae0OQWv3L3VGK$>
[cid:image013.png at 01DB081D.8D66A5F0]
From: Sheehe, Charles J. (GRC-LCN0) <charles.j.sheehe at nasa.gov<mailto:charles.j.sheehe at nasa.gov>>
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2024 2:33 PM
To: Greeney, Lisa A. (GRC-V000)[eMITS] <lisa.a.greeney at nasa.gov<mailto:lisa.a.greeney at nasa.gov>>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] IGCA CESG Approval
Tuesday if possible it is the last step before the vote.
Thanks
Chuck
Charles J. Sheehe III
Computer Engineer
Secure Networks, System
Integration and Test Branch (LCN)
Glenn Research Center
21000 Brookpark Rd
Cleveland, OH 44135
Charles.J.Sheehe at NASA.GOV<mailto:Charles.J.Sheehe at NASA.GOV> Email
Charles.J.Sheehe at NSS.SGov.Gov<mailto:Charles.J.Sheehe at NSS.SGov.Gov> SIPRmail
Charles.Sheehe at NASA.IC.Gov<mailto:Charles.Sheehe at NASA.IC.Gov>
Office: 216-433-5179
There are two ways to design a system. One is to make it so simple there are obviously no deficiencies.
The other is to make it so complex there are no obvious deficiencies.
- C. A. R. Hoare
From: Greeney, Lisa A. (GRC-V000)[eMITS] <lisa.a.greeney at nasa.gov<mailto:lisa.a.greeney at nasa.gov>>
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2024 2:32 PM
To: Sheehe, Charles J. (GRC-LCN0) <charles.j.sheehe at nasa.gov<mailto:charles.j.sheehe at nasa.gov>>
Cc: Kirkby, Debra L. (GRC-V000)[eMITS] <debra.l.kirkby at nasa.gov<mailto:debra.l.kirkby at nasa.gov>>; Mason, Sandra (GRC-V000)[eMITS] <sandra.c.mason at nasa.gov<mailto:sandra.c.mason at nasa.gov>>; Feher, Lorraine C. (GRC-V000)[eMITS] <lorraine.c.feher at nasa.gov<mailto:lorraine.c.feher at nasa.gov>>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] IGCA CESG Approval
Chuck,
What is the due date that you need an Editor to review?
Another editor from ISO publications is also editing this?
[signature_3184380081]
Lisa Greeney
Document Specialist (Layout)
ROAR | Rothe ARES JV
NASA Glenn Research Center
21000 Brookpark Rd.
Cleveland, OH 44135
Building 14, Room 122, Cubical #2
216.433.3506
Lisa.A.Greeney at nasa.gov<mailto:Lisa.A.Greeney at nasa.gov>
Schedule: August 19-23 [cid:image015.png at 01DB081D.8D66A5F0]
Onsite: M, W, F: 6:30 am to 2:30 pm
Teleworking: T, TH: 8:00 am to 4:30 pm
[cid:image006.png at 01DB081D.8D66A5F0][teams.microsoft.com]<https://urldefense.us/v3/__https:/gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https*3A*2F*2Furldefense.us*2Fv3*2F__https*3A*2Fgcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com*2F*3Furl*3Dhttps*3A*2F*2Furldefense.us*2Fv3*2F__https*3A*2Furldefense.com*2Fv3*2F__https*3A*2Fteams.microsoft.com*2Fl*2Fchat*2F0*2F0*3Fusers*3DLisa.A.Greeney*40nasa.gov__*3B!!NFAdMAnI0yk!H8jVJLU5V5hgQ1yAbyJYMvmY7M4ua0dP-Cn6j7wS7w7IrRRC40cjf9TiWHUZHavpPbFqoZRbOBQasKJXnHdMOfBvWfyB71F-*24__*3B!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!LPyJlJrGyTszqVt-a-29iGdL8Q0WZzhTmkLsNSyGX3iFxdsit3wLcEqoEtngVwUmqbkMoyvtxyEOWRFWwilvGM5_rtIEqOHg9p0*24*26data*3D05*7C02*7Cpeter.m.shames*40jpl.nasa.gov*7C8c640699edbd48eaae2208dcd26be4a6*7C7005d45845be48ae8140d43da96dd17b*7C0*7C0*7C638616608122313651*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C0*7C*7C*7C*26sdata*3DbEVt*2BXH9MBI8GyLQqaZ*2Bn8VVYlp0yaVmj6IiUn5MLZQ*3D*26reserved*3D0__*3BJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJQ!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!JILkqigl7AZSVeohjfrNn2FME7VThRvL_nudFD5oDOViVm6sR1j37gf7IAZ1rZi656qQbgKppRoYiUwDSyb-G4C50OrS21h_*24&data=05*7C02*7Cpeter.m.shames*40jpl.nasa.gov*7C0a437d6b42ca441b977108dcd29c0f43*7C7005d45845be48ae8140d43da96dd17b*7C0*7C0*7C638616816103811341*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C0*7C*7C*7C&sdata=qM2kt9RpeiYiWiTaDpYV6YSu6ye6R4GX8MJWNjqU52Q*3D&reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSoqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKiolJSoqKioqKioqKioqKioqKiUlKioqJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSU!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!IoLAb883bCU1s_uLZ0chegpLGQvUCiCxEvrG00i2WvCPqPCUoPbf675qijjIPx5X4xnQb0vzxGUagcXvkn7ae0OQWv3L3VGK$>
[cid:image016.png at 01DB081D.8D66A5F0]
From: Sheehe, Charles J. (GRC-LCN0) <charles.j.sheehe at nasa.gov<mailto:charles.j.sheehe at nasa.gov>>
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2024 2:30 PM
To: Greeney, Lisa A. (GRC-V000)[eMITS] <lisa.a.greeney at nasa.gov<mailto:lisa.a.greeney at nasa.gov>>
Cc: Kirkby, Debra L. (GRC-V000)[eMITS] <debra.l.kirkby at nasa.gov<mailto:debra.l.kirkby at nasa.gov>>; Mason, Sandra (GRC-V000)[eMITS] <sandra.c.mason at nasa.gov<mailto:sandra.c.mason at nasa.gov>>; Feher, Lorraine C. (GRC-V000)[eMITS] <lorraine.c.feher at nasa.gov<mailto:lorraine.c.feher at nasa.gov>>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] IGCA CESG Approval
They only sent the PDF I am no longer the editor since it has moved to the ISO editor for publication.
Thanks
Chuck
Charles J. Sheehe III
Computer Engineer
Secure Networks, System
Integration and Test Branch (LCN)
Glenn Research Center
21000 Brookpark Rd
Cleveland, OH 44135
Charles.J.Sheehe at NASA.GOV<mailto:Charles.J.Sheehe at NASA.GOV> Email
Charles.J.Sheehe at NSS.SGov.Gov<mailto:Charles.J.Sheehe at NSS.SGov.Gov> SIPRmail
Charles.Sheehe at NASA.IC.Gov<mailto:Charles.Sheehe at NASA.IC.Gov>
Office: 216-433-5179
There are two ways to design a system. One is to make it so simple there are obviously no deficiencies.
The other is to make it so complex there are no obvious deficiencies.
- C. A. R. Hoare
From: Greeney, Lisa A. (GRC-V000)[eMITS] <lisa.a.greeney at nasa.gov<mailto:lisa.a.greeney at nasa.gov>>
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2024 1:51 PM
To: Sheehe, Charles J. (GRC-LCN0) <charles.j.sheehe at nasa.gov<mailto:charles.j.sheehe at nasa.gov>>
Cc: Kirkby, Debra L. (GRC-V000)[eMITS] <debra.l.kirkby at nasa.gov<mailto:debra.l.kirkby at nasa.gov>>; Mason, Sandra (GRC-V000)[eMITS] <sandra.c.mason at nasa.gov<mailto:sandra.c.mason at nasa.gov>>; Feher, Lorraine C. (GRC-V000)[eMITS] <lorraine.c.feher at nasa.gov<mailto:lorraine.c.feher at nasa.gov>>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] IGCA CESG Approval
Chuck,
Send us the Word version also since a PDF was only sent.
[signature_3184380081]
Lisa Greeney
Document Specialist (Layout)
ROAR | Rothe ARES JV
NASA Glenn Research Center
21000 Brookpark Rd.
Cleveland, OH 44135
Building 14, Room 122, Cubical #2
216.433.3506
Lisa.A.Greeney at nasa.gov<mailto:Lisa.A.Greeney at nasa.gov>
Schedule: August 19-23 [cid:image015.png at 01DB081D.8D66A5F0]
Onsite: M, W, F: 6:30 am to 2:30 pm
Teleworking: T, TH: 8:00 am to 4:30 pm
[cid:image006.png at 01DB081D.8D66A5F0][teams.microsoft.com]<https://urldefense.us/v3/__https:/gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https*3A*2F*2Furldefense.us*2Fv3*2F__https*3A*2Fgcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com*2F*3Furl*3Dhttps*3A*2F*2Furldefense.us*2Fv3*2F__https*3A*2Furldefense.com*2Fv3*2F__https*3A*2Fteams.microsoft.com*2Fl*2Fchat*2F0*2F0*3Fusers*3DLisa.A.Greeney*40nasa.gov__*3B!!NFAdMAnI0yk!H8jVJLU5V5hgQ1yAbyJYMvmY7M4ua0dP-Cn6j7wS7w7IrRRC40cjf9TiWHUZHavpPbFqoZRbOBQasKJXnHdMOfBvWfyB71F-*24__*3B!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!LPyJlJrGyTszqVt-a-29iGdL8Q0WZzhTmkLsNSyGX3iFxdsit3wLcEqoEtngVwUmqbkMoyvtxyEOWRFWwilvGM5_rtIEqOHg9p0*24*26data*3D05*7C02*7Cpeter.m.shames*40jpl.nasa.gov*7C8c640699edbd48eaae2208dcd26be4a6*7C7005d45845be48ae8140d43da96dd17b*7C0*7C0*7C638616608122313651*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C0*7C*7C*7C*26sdata*3DbEVt*2BXH9MBI8GyLQqaZ*2Bn8VVYlp0yaVmj6IiUn5MLZQ*3D*26reserved*3D0__*3BJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJQ!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!JILkqigl7AZSVeohjfrNn2FME7VThRvL_nudFD5oDOViVm6sR1j37gf7IAZ1rZi656qQbgKppRoYiUwDSyb-G4C50OrS21h_*24&data=05*7C02*7Cpeter.m.shames*40jpl.nasa.gov*7C0a437d6b42ca441b977108dcd29c0f43*7C7005d45845be48ae8140d43da96dd17b*7C0*7C0*7C638616816103811341*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C0*7C*7C*7C&sdata=qM2kt9RpeiYiWiTaDpYV6YSu6ye6R4GX8MJWNjqU52Q*3D&reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSoqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKiolJSoqKioqKioqKioqKioqKiUlKioqJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSU!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!IoLAb883bCU1s_uLZ0chegpLGQvUCiCxEvrG00i2WvCPqPCUoPbf675qijjIPx5X4xnQb0vzxGUagcXvkn7ae0OQWv3L3VGK$>
[cid:image016.png at 01DB081D.8D66A5F0]
From: Sheehe, Charles J. (GRC-LCN0) <charles.j.sheehe at nasa.gov<mailto:charles.j.sheehe at nasa.gov>>
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2024 1:32 PM
To: Greeney, Lisa A. (GRC-V000)[eMITS] <lisa.a.greeney at nasa.gov<mailto:lisa.a.greeney at nasa.gov>>
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] IGCA CESG Approval
Importance: High
Hi
We are close I am going to read through this tomorrow, if you would not mind looking at it that would be great as my grammar and spelling etc. is not the best.
Thanks
Chuck
Charles J. Sheehe III
Computer Engineer
Secure Networks, System
Integration and Test Branch (LCN)
Glenn Research Center
21000 Brookpark Rd
Cleveland, OH 44135
Charles.J.Sheehe at NASA.GOV<mailto:Charles.J.Sheehe at NASA.GOV> Email
Charles.J.Sheehe at NSS.SGov.Gov<mailto:Charles.J.Sheehe at NSS.SGov.Gov> SIPRmail
Charles.Sheehe at NASA.IC.Gov<mailto:Charles.Sheehe at NASA.IC.Gov>
Office: 216-433-5179
There are two ways to design a system. One is to make it so simple there are obviously no deficiencies.
The other is to make it so complex there are no obvious deficiencies.
- C. A. R. Hoare
From: Thomas Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net<mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>>
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2024 1:24 PM
To: Howard.Weiss at parsons.us<mailto:Howard.Weiss at parsons.us>; Sheehe, Charles J. (GRC-LCN0) <charles.j.sheehe at nasa.gov<mailto:charles.j.sheehe at nasa.gov>>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] IGCA CESG Approval
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of NASA. Please take care when clicking links or opening attachments. Use the "Report Message" button to report suspicious messages to the NASA SOC.
Howie, Chuck:
I have created the CESG approval poll. You may want to review the attached approval document concurrently to assure changes I made to text and figures in response to abstruse/ambiguous text are consistent with WG intent, etc.
Tom
Logothete, L.L.C.
thomas.gannett at tgannett.net<mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>
+1 443 472 0805
'NOTICE: This email message and all attachments transmitted with it may contain privileged and confidential information, and information that is protected by, and proprietary to, Parsons Corporation, and is intended solely for the use of the addressee for the specific purpose set forth in this communication. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading, dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited, and you should delete this message and all copies and backups thereof. The recipient may not further distribute or use any of the information contained herein without the express written authorization of the sender. If you have received this message in error, or if you have any questions regarding the use of the proprietary information contained therein, please contact the sender of this message immediately, and the sender will provide you with further instructions.'
This message is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. It may contain proprietary information and/or protected content. Any unauthorised disclosure, use, retention or dissemination is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately. ESA applies appropriate organisational measures to protect personal data, in case of data privacy queries, please contact the ESA Data Protection Officer (dpo at esa.int).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20240916/a92af1ee/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 91712 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20240916/a92af1ee/attachment-0016.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 23782 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20240916/a92af1ee/attachment-0017.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 27978 bytes
Desc: image003.png
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20240916/a92af1ee/attachment-0018.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 18608 bytes
Desc: image004.png
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20240916/a92af1ee/attachment-0019.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5019 bytes
Desc: image005.png
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20240916/a92af1ee/attachment-0020.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image006.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5956 bytes
Desc: image006.png
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20240916/a92af1ee/attachment-0021.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image007.png
Type: image/png
Size: 22738 bytes
Desc: image007.png
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20240916/a92af1ee/attachment-0022.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image008.png
Type: image/png
Size: 23653 bytes
Desc: image008.png
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20240916/a92af1ee/attachment-0023.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image009.png
Type: image/png
Size: 27871 bytes
Desc: image009.png
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20240916/a92af1ee/attachment-0024.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image010.png
Type: image/png
Size: 18568 bytes
Desc: image010.png
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20240916/a92af1ee/attachment-0025.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image011.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5008 bytes
Desc: image011.png
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20240916/a92af1ee/attachment-0026.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image012.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6019 bytes
Desc: image012.png
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20240916/a92af1ee/attachment-0027.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image013.png
Type: image/png
Size: 22720 bytes
Desc: image013.png
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20240916/a92af1ee/attachment-0028.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image014.png
Type: image/png
Size: 18595 bytes
Desc: image014.png
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20240916/a92af1ee/attachment-0029.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image015.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5016 bytes
Desc: image015.png
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20240916/a92af1ee/attachment-0030.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image016.png
Type: image/png
Size: 22698 bytes
Desc: image016.png
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20240916/a92af1ee/attachment-0031.png>
More information about the CESG
mailing list