[SIS-CFDPV1] Re: [Sis-dtn] CCSDS Notification -- Renew / Retire / Update SCPS-TP specification in CCSDS

[Kiyohisa Suzuki]

I also would agree with either renewing or retiring the SCPS-TP 
specification.

If we would choose "renewing", I concur with Scott, and in addition I 
think that we have any applicable mission plans in current or future as 
"yardstick".

-Kiyo

On 2016/02/01 22:57, Scott, Keith L. wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> The SCPS-TP specification is again overdue for reconfirmation within
> CCSDS.  At this time we have the opportunity to:
>
>  1. *RENEW* the specification for another 5 years — essentially leaving
>     it as-is.
>  2. *RETIRE* the specification to ‘silver
>     <http://public.ccsds.org/publications/SilverBooks.aspx>’ status — it
>     will remain accessible via the CCSDS website but will no longer be
>     considered an ‘active’ CCSDS Specification
>       * We did this already with the SCPS-NP
>         <http://public.ccsds.org/publications/archive/713x0b1s.pdf>,
>         SCPS-SP,
>         <http://public.ccsds.org/publications/archive/713x5b1sc1.pdf>
>         and SCPS-FP
>         <http://public.ccsds.org/publications/archive/717x0b1s.pdf>
>         protocols.
>       * SCPS-TP is not used in any known space missions.
>  3. *UPDATE* the specification — make changes to it.
>       * Note that updating the specification would require securing
>         resources from two CCSDS member agencies, which would be very
>         difficult unless there is a compelling need.
>
> CCSDS has maintained the SCPS-TP specification mainly as a service to
> the terrestrial community using it.  As noted above, SCPS-TP has not
> been deployed in space missions and within CCSDS is being supplanted by
> the combination of TCP and the IP suite (where the IP suite can function
> well) and the BP suite (where the IP suite doesn’t function well).
>
> The activity of determining what to do with the specification will be
> undertaken by the SIS area and discussed briefly during the SIS-DTN
> portion of the Spring meetings in Cleveland week of 4 April.
>
> *What I am interested in now are opinions from the community as to the
> three options above.  In particular, does anyone see a need for CCSDS to
> maintain the ‘active’ status of SCPS-TP?  Again, retiring the
> specification within CCSDS will NOT cause it to disappear, NOR will it
> change the fact that the TCP options that implement the signaling for
> SCPS-TP will remain defined in IANA.*
>
> V/r,
>
>
>
> —keith
>
>
> __
>
> *Dr. Keith Scott*Office: +1.703.983.6547
>
> Chief Engineer, J86A Fax:      +1.703.983.7142
>
> Communications Network Engineering & AnalysisEmail: kscott at mitre.org
> <mailto:kscott at mitre.org>
>
> The MITRE Corporation <http://www.mitre.org/>
>
> M/S H300
>
> 7515 Colshire Drive
>
> McLean, VA 22102
>
> Area Director,CCSDS <http://www.ccsds.org/> Space Internetworking
> Services <http://cwe.ccsds.org/sis/default.aspx>
>
> MITRE self-signs its own certificates.  Information about the MITRE PKI
> Certificate Chain is available from http://www.mitre.org/tech/mii/pki/
>
> <http://www.mitre.org/>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sis-dtn mailing list
> Sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org
> http://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sis-dtn
>