[Sis-csi] noting unusual CCSDS security critique

[Krupiarz, Christopher]

Lloyd,

Thanks for the clarification.  I'm not sure if this is a question for
the SSTL authors instead of you, but I'll ask anyway.

In the most recent paper, the replacement protocol (Saratoga) is
described as having a smaller footprint and increased performance
compared to the CFDP implementation and that the CFDP implementation was
"considered large, slow and resource-hungry".  As a fellow developer,
I'm reluctant to ask this question, but was it the implementation that
didn't meet mission needs or the protocol?  I'm guessing it was at least
in some part due to CFDP, but it's not clear in the paper why the
protocol in particular was a problem.

Also, can I assume Saratoga is proprietary?  
 
Chris



-----Original Message-----
From: Lloyd Wood [mailto:lwood at cisco.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 2:35 PM
To: Krupiarz, Christopher
Cc: Scott Burleigh
Subject: RE: [Sis-csi] noting unusual CCSDS security critique


At 02:24 PM 10/5/2005 -0400, Krupiarz, Christopher wrote:
>Lloyd,
>
>That's interesting about SSTL & CFDP.  There's a fair number of papers
>listed on your link (good to be prolific! ;).  Could you point out one
in 
>particular that sums up the reasons behind the change and what is being

>used instead?

The strong links with bolded are recommended reading. The most recently 
submitted paper, at top, contains the most detail on that. Other papers 
whose content is completely included in that paper have that indicated
on 
their individual abstracts pages, as a quick browse will show you.

L.

Lloyd Wood, London, UK. lwood at cisco.com  http://www.cisco.com/go/space
space initiatives manager, Cisco Systems Global Defense, Space and
Security.