[Sis-csi] The _other_ SCPS protocols (SP, NP, FP)

[Lawrence C. Freudinger]

I vote to reaffirm NP  & SP as recommendations until at least 2009.  In the
airplane world we are just now getting our feet wet in network-oriented
communications, with investments finally being made to explore the SCPS
protocols for performance optimizations in the suborbital domain.  I don't
currently have an opinion on FP.

 

As far as I can tell, the suborbital domain will not in our lifetime have
"bandwidth to burn" across all the platforms that will be nodes on airborne
networks. As the airplane world gains experience we'll be able to contribute
to the evolution of these protocols.  Progress is, unfortunately,
frustratingly slow.  

 

It's not just the airplane world.  The DoD with it's transformational
communications architecture permeates every conceivable mobile node, many of
them with analogs in space or on Moon/Mars.  And in academia, the nascent
field of sensor webs and intelligent observation systems involve highly
resource-constrained and bandwidth constrained problems.

 

To address one of Dave Israel's comments (Does anybody really foresee these
other protocols being used? ):

 

I do.  The DOD's 'Integrated Network Enhanced Telemetry (iNET) project
funded via OSD's Central Test and Evaluation Investment Program (CTEIP) has
embarked on a technology maturation effort to close gaps and move the
test/evaluation world toward network-centric solutions.  In their initial
architecture study they unambiguously inserted a placeholder for "ip
variants" at the network layer.  SCPS-NP (MIL-STD-2045-43000) is obviously
something the iNET folks had recognized as contender to fill this role.

 

One of the project's I'm working on is to actually use the SCPS SP/TP/NP
suite over the highly bandwidth constrained Iridium constellation to (among
other things) optimize the performance of Iridium and increase its value
when communicating with globally deployed pilotless vehicles.  In reference
to other emails in this discussion, Aggressive header compression, MPLS-like
path identification, and security for highly constrained links are in fact
features of the SCPS suite that make it attractive for our airplane
applications.

 

IMHO, It will take another 5 years for the airplane test world to actually
work with these protocols such that our experience can significantly
contribute to their evolution.  Whether the standards community locks them
for the next 5 years in or updates them first can be debated, but retiring
them should not even be a consideration.

 

Best regards,

Larry

 





 

  _____  

From: sis-csi-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org
[mailto:sis-csi-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] On Behalf Of Keith Scott
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 12:25 PM
To: sis-csi at mailman.ccsds.org; sis-scps-interest at mailman.ccsds.org
Cc: sis at mailman.ccsds.org; dstanton at keltik.co.uk; durst at mitre.org
Subject: [Sis-csi] The _other_ SCPS protocols (SP, NP, FP)

 

All,

 

[.]

In short, SCPS-NP, SCPS-SP, and SCPS-FP provide bit-efficient services that
will be needed on future space missions.  While some missions will likely
have bandwidth to burn, others that are not so lucky will be able to reap
significant benefits from NP, SP, and FP.  For that reason I would suggest
that these protocols be reaffirmed as Recommendations within CCSDS.

 

Again, I invite discussion on any/all of the protocols.

 

[.]

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sis-csi/attachments/20041203/0e13cb80/attachment-0001.htm