[Sis-csi] noting unusual CCSDS security critique

[Scott Burleigh]

Krupiarz, Christopher wrote:

>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.
>  
>
That's my reading of the paper too.  The two sentences in which "CFDP" 
appears both talk about the performance deficiencies of the 
implementation (and, in one case, the deficiencies of the implementation 
of TCP as well).  It would be good to hear more about the problems SSTL 
found in the CFDP protocol itself.

Scott