[CMC] Re: [CESG] Draft-3 CCSDS report to IOAG-11

Tue Jun 12 16:24:54 EDT 2007

I would be in favor of Adrian's recommendation since a longer term view is likely to serve us better. The current discussion thread is mostly about how to deal with legacy special purpose commitments. A space internetwork WG could perhaps avoid creating similar artifacts that are specific to the cislunar environment. In addition a strong focus on the Recommended Practice will be critical for guiding the community to happy and productive use of the standard. (Motherhood is also a good thing.)

-----Original Message-----
From: cmc-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org [mailto:cmc-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org]On Behalf Of Adrian J. Hooke
Sent: June 12, 2007 10:12 AM
To: Chris.Taylor at esa.int
Cc: greg.kazz at jpl.nasa.gov; CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - ADs; kscott at mitre.org; CCSDS Management Council
Subject: [CMC] Re: [CESG] Draft-3 CCSDS report to IOAG-11

At 12:25 AM 6/12/2007, Chris.Taylor at esa.int wrote:

Adrian, I see that the option to multiplex IP using HDLC as a private bit stream is still in the list. I thought we had killed this one with the response to the recent review where quite a few Agencies were strongly against it. It therefore seems incorrect to give it any sort of credibility as a x-support option to be considered by the IOAG.

Chris: reports of its death are greatly exaggerated. Use of Virtual Channel Access (VCA) and Bitstream service is perfectly legal in the AOS specification, and for whatever reason the Constellation program has elected to use that legal option in the standard. Whether or not it's a good *idea* to use those options it is another matter: but that's an operational decision about what standard features of AOS will be cross supported and what won't - and that decision should be made by the IOAG agencies.

 I think this should first be resolved within CCSDS before exposing it outside and would recommend it's removal.

The only way to remove it from the AOS standard is to modify the CCSDS Blue Book. That means forming a BOF, re-starting a WG and processing Pink Sheets. And in the process you might be removing capabilities that actually have utility, if properly and honestly applied.

Alternatively, we could - in conjunction with the IOAG - form a joint CCSDS-IOAG Working Group to come up with a Recommended Practice (Magenta Book) that specifically states the recommended architecture,  protocol suite and evolutionary strategy for moving towards a future era of Space Internetworking. In fact, we have the nucleus of that in the current CCSDS Cislunar Space Internetworking WG, which is stalled on this same issue.  Cislunar, as currently constituted, is very poorly supported by any Agency other than NASA - although it does enjoy strong support from the very people who made the Constellation decision, as well as from your local U.K. representative from Cisco/Surrey Space Technology (who seems to have his own agenda that's different from the European agencies). 

My recommendation is to remove the work 'Cislunar' from its title and to re-charter it as the 'CCSDS Space Internetworking Working Group'. Instead of focusing on just the Earth-Moon communications environment, it would in fact expand to cover the whole domain of space internetworking and it would "work backwards from Mars" to come up with a Recommended Practice that covers the whole problem space. It would be properly staffed by nominated personnel representing the senior CCSDS Agencies and would contain appointed  representatives from the IOAG network operators.  "Visitors" to the working group would be treated as such: their inputs would be listened to and respected, but they would not be voting members.

I'd like to get the reaction of the CESG and the CMC to this proposal. Obviously, there is going to be extensive discussion about the "IP-in-Space" topic at next week's IOAG meeting. We then have a CMC meeting in Brussels the following week to "catch" the results. If CCSDS would like to propose this new Working Group strategy, then I have it on good authority that NASA will be willing to supply the necessary resources to lead it. We could then get moving on the work over the Summer, leading up to the Fall CCSDS meeting.

Best regards
Adrian

Adrian J. Hooke
Chairman, CCSDS Engineering Steering Group (CESG)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cmc/attachments/20070612/9a83b79e/attachment.htm