[Sis-dtn] Quick comments: [CESG] SIS Resolution to submit Voice and Audio Communications Red Book for processing and CESG Polling for Agency Review (SIS-R-2014-11-003)
Austin Stanton
dstanton at keltik.co.uk
Wed Nov 26 01:16:00 UTC 2014
“tis a fine line we tread.
I’ve been in a couple of meetings recently where I came out with the line “Everyone thinks they’re a bloody comms engineer. The converse also appears to be true - we think everyone is also a comms engineer. In my mind, anyone who can’t figure out that the UT service exactly matches the SLS services must be severely hard of thinking - a failure on my part really.
The Blue Book must be absolutely bearer service neutral. We then unfortunately have to go through the unimaginable ball ache of writing explicit conversion layer documents through the CCSDS review process. We need a streamlined review process to get this sort of trivia published.
Dai
> On 25 Nov 2014, at 19:48, Burleigh, Scott C (312B) <scott.c.burleigh at jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
> Well, that is a good point; if omitting this sort of deployment guidance is costing us flight opportunities then we need to provide it. It still doesn’t seem like the CFDP Blue Book is the right place for that, though. Even though it would mean a proliferation of documents and some additional project management, might it be good to start writing Magenta Books for the various CFDP UT-layer adaptations?
>
> Scott
> <>
> From: Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int <mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int> [mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int <mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 11:29 AM
> To: Burleigh, Scott C (312B)
> Cc: Keith Scott; sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org>; sis-mia at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:sis-mia at mailman.ccsds.org>
> Subject: RE: [Sis-dtn] RE: Quick comments: [CESG] SIS Resolution to submit Voice and Audio Communications Red Book for processing and CESG Polling for Agency Review (SIS-R-2014-11-003)
>
> Scott,
> I buy completely one of the two comments you offer (or at least I guess so).
>
> When I reworded that paragraph and I wrote the sentence "Class 1 is best used over reliable DTN "UT layer" stack while Class 2 can be used also over unreliable DTN "UT layer" stack." I just wanted to preserve what was in brackets in the two bullets.
> Clearly writing:
> CFDP supports the following classes.
> – Class 1—Unreliable CFDP Transfer;
> – Class 2—Reliable CFDP Transfer;
> Each of the classes can be supported over the DTN Bundle Protocol (reference [19]).
> Moreover, both classes can also be operated over the Encapsulation Service (reference [722.1-M-1]).
> is a form that I like a lot and it is more appropriate to show the most "appreciated" CFDP supporters.
> This is assuming that you do not want to keep the remarks in parenthesis in the two bullets.
>
> About the UT layer options, I think we may not need to be exhaustive but any missing link will cost us something.
> With the original formulation of the UT Layer we discovered that many implementers were not sure on how to implement CFDP over space packets.
> I can ensure that this costed "a fortune" for the missed promotion of CFDP usage till we acknowledged that we missed a link between CFPD and the Space Data Link Protocols (or at least that link was ambiguous) and we wrote the CFDP Magenta Book 722.1-M.
> IMO, Leaving in the dark whether/how CFDP can operate over BP pr LTP can be quite negative for DTN promotion and may vrise issues about different implementations and unclear global CCSDS architecture.
>
> That's my cent.
>
> Ciao
>
> Gian Paolo
>
> -----"Burleigh, Scott C (312B)" <scott.c.burleigh at jpl.nasa.gov <mailto:scott.c.burleigh at jpl.nasa.gov>> wrote: -----
> To: "Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int <mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>" <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int <mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>>, "Scott, Keith L." <kscott at mitre.org <mailto:kscott at mitre.org>>
> From: "Burleigh, Scott C (312B)" <scott.c.burleigh at jpl.nasa.gov <mailto:scott.c.burleigh at jpl.nasa.gov>>
> Date: 25/11/2014 20:04
> Cc: "sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org>" <sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org>>, "sis-mia at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:sis-mia at mailman.ccsds.org>" <sis-mia at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:sis-mia at mailman.ccsds.org>>
> Subject: RE: [Sis-dtn] RE: Quick comments: [CESG] SIS Resolution to submit Voice and Audio Communications Red Book for processing and CESG Polling for Agency Review (SIS-R-2014-11-003)
>
> I have two comments to offer:
> · I don’t think we want to bias mission concepts by saying that CFDP Class 1 is “best” used over a reliable UT layer such as a reliable DTN stack. Certainly it may be used over such a stack, but for some applications it may be desirable to send files in a truly unidirectional, unacknowledged manner where data losses are not repaired, such as Class 1 over TM.
>
> · We don’t attempt to enumerate UT-layer options in the CFDP Blue Book, because the range of options is unlimited, by design. The only normative language in section 3.4 pertains to the required capabilities; there are no prescribed UT-layer protocol options. In the informative language (“NOTES”) of section 3.4 we do mention that CCSDS Path or Packet service could be used, but of course many other stacks are also possible. So I don’t think we need to note in the CFDP Blue Book that LTP is a possible UT-layer protocol. I’m not convinced that this really needs to be stated anywhere at all, but I wouldn’t oppose noting it in one of the CFDP Green Books if people felt it was truly necessary.
>
>
> Scott
>
> From: sis-dtn-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:sis-dtn-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> [mailto:sis-dtn-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:sis-dtn-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>] On Behalf Of Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int <mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 5:14 AM
> To: Scott, Keith L.
> Cc: sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org>; sis-mia at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:sis-mia at mailman.ccsds.org>
> Subject: [Sis-dtn] RE: Quick comments: [CESG] SIS Resolution to submit Voice and Audio Communications Red Book for processing and CESG Polling for Agency Review (SIS-R-2014-11-003)
>
> Thank you, Keith.
>
> A few more considerations here below.
>
> For (non normative) section 2.1 I do concur to leave it to the mission designer to decide exactly what CFDP runs over (BP, Encapsulation, …)
> So, after a further thought (due to your comment :o) it may be the best is to reword the paragraph to something like the (improvable) text below.
> CFDP supports the following classes.
> – Class 1—Unreliable CFDP Transfer;
> – Class 2—Reliable CFDP Transfer;
> Each of the classes can be supported over the DTN Bundle Protocol (reference [19]).
> Class 1 is best used over reliable DTN "UT layer" stack while Class 2 can be used also over unreliable DTN "UT layer" stack.
> Morevore, both classes can also be operated over the Encapsulation Service (reference [722.1-M-1]).
>
> For Clause 4.2.2.2.2 I wait for a consolidated proposal. However keep in mind that also other data link protocols offer VCA service.
>
> For Clause 4.3.5 , I always thought that CFDP directly over LTP was not allowed.
> If this is not the case, this should be reflected first in the relevant documents (e.g. CFDP section 3.4 SERVICES REQUIRED OF THE UNDERLYING COMMUNICATION SYSTEM?).
> Even if the text is in the "e.g." part, we shall not extend standards by making comments in other books. So I definitively agree in making a NOTE (I guess that avoiding "e.g." in normative should be a good practice though I cannot declare myself innocent in this respect).
>
> Regards
>
> Gian Paolo
>
>
> From: "Scott, Keith L." <kscott at mitre.org <mailto:kscott at mitre.org>>
> To: "osvaldo.peinado at dlr.de <mailto:osvaldo.peinado at dlr.de>" <osvaldo.peinado at dlr.de <mailto:osvaldo.peinado at dlr.de>>, "Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int <mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>" <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int <mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>>,
> Cc: "sis-mia at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:sis-mia at mailman.ccsds.org>" <sis-mia at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:sis-mia at mailman.ccsds.org>>, "sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org>" <sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org>>
> Date: 25/11/2014 13:39
> Subject: RE: Quick comments: [CESG] SIS Resolution to submit Voice and Audio Communications Red Book for processing and CESG Polling for Agency Review (SIS-R-2014-11-003)
>
>
>
> I’m pulling in the MIA and DTN lists here.
>
> Ø My responses to some of Gian Paolo’s comments inline below.
>
> --keith
>
> From: osvaldo.peinado at dlr.de <mailto:osvaldo.peinado at dlr.de> [mailto:osvaldo.peinado at dlr.de <mailto:osvaldo.peinado at dlr.de>]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 5:36 AM
> To: Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int <mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>; Scott, Keith L.
> Cc: tomg at aiaa.org <mailto:tomg at aiaa.org>
> Subject: AW: Quick comments: [CESG] SIS Resolution to submit Voice and Audio Communications Red Book for processing and CESG Polling for Agency Review (SIS-R-2014-11-003)
>
> Hi Gian Paolo,
> Thank you very much for your inputs. The DTN part was written by the DTN group, but I will check it with them.
> Thanks also for all the others recommendations, I will fix/check all of them.
> Best Regards
> Osvaldo
>
>
> Von: Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int <mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int> [mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int <mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>]
> Gesendet: Montag, 24. November 2014 17:30
> An: Scott, Keith L.; Peinado, Osvaldo Luis
> Cc: Tom Gannett
> Betreff: Quick comments: [CESG] SIS Resolution to submit Voice and Audio Communications Red Book for processing and CESG Polling for Agency Review (SIS-R-2014-11-003)
>
> Keith, Osvaldo
> here below a few preliminary quick comments.
> You may want to consider them before CESG poll starts.
> Regards
>
> Gian Paolo
>
>
> In section 2.1 I would reword this sentence from:
> CFDP supports two classes. Each of the classes can be supported over the DTN Bundle Protocol (reference [19]) and DTN Licklider Transport Protocol (LTP) (reference [18]).
> To e.g.:
> CFDP supports two classes. Each of the classes can be supported over the DTN Bundle Protocol (reference [19]). DTN may eventually operate over the Licklider Transport Protocol (LTP) (reference [18]).
>
> Ø I think the question here is how we think voice might be layered (specifically, if we think voice might run DIRECTLY over LTP or not). From the fact that CFDP seems to be the important bit here, we might say something like:
>
> § CFDP supports the following classes, both of which can be supported by the DTN Bundle Protocol (reference [19]).
>
> Ø And leave it to the mission designer to decide exactly what CFDP runs over (BP, Encapsulation, …)
>
>
>
> Is the terminology <DTN Bundle Protocol >, <DTN Licklider Transport Protocol> correct?
>
> Ø I hadn’t really thought about it too much, but I think this terminology is pretty good (though the reference to LTP was removed in my suggested text above). DTN is the label for ‘the stack’ and Bundle Protocol identifies the particular protocol. We could say something like ‘Bundle Protocol for CCSDS’ (the name of the BP for CCSDS Book) but I think the context, coupled with the reference, make it clear what we’re talking about.
>
>
> Clause 4.2.2.2.2 Advanced Orbiting Systems (AOS) Virtual Channel Access (VCA), AOS [24] Bitstream, and AOS [24] Insert services should be used to transmit voice and audio data.
> I think that this clause should be reworded to be clearer to e.g.
> The following services of AOS [24] should be used to transmit voice and audio data: Virtual Channell Access (VCA), Bitstream, and Insert.
> Ø I might have said something like
> o Voice and audio data should be transferred using (one or more of ???) the following services: Advanced Orbiting Systems (AOS, [24]) Virtual Channel Access (VCA), AOS Bitstream Service, and AOS Insert.
> o Not sure about ‘using one of the following’ vs. ‘using the following’ – if we’re thinking these types of transmissions are typically single-hop then ‘one of…’ will work. If a single voice transmission might use multiple transmission mechanisms then ‘using the following’ (or using one or more of the following) is probably better.
>
>
> Note also that the VCA Service is also offered by Telemetry (CCSDS 132.0-B) and Telecommand (CCSDS 232.0-B), therefore a user willing to use VCA should not be limited to AOS.
>
> Clause 4.3.5 Files may be transmitted by any general file transmission protocol, e.g., via CFDP Class 1 or Class 2 (reference [17]), over CCSDS links or over DTN protocol (references [18] and [19]).
> I think here reference 18 should be removed as CFDP would never interface LTP directly.
> Ø Why not? Once could do CFDP unreliable over LTP Red, for example, in order to write a very small and simple (if non-class-1-supporting) CFDP implementation. I don’t feel too strongly about this one way or the other, especially since this text is in the ‘example’ clause of the sentence and is therefore (the way I would read the document) not normative. It might be better even to separate the example into a NOTE (NOTE: File transfer may for example use CFDP ….) We also don’t have a CFDP over LTP UT layer spec.
>
>
> Clause 4.5.5 Frequencies and channelization: If a direct space link to spacecraft is available or if the MCC communicates using a space link to other MCC, the CCSDS standard frequency (reference [20][21][22]) should be used.
> The 3 references mentioned there are the 3 books for Proximity-1. Only [20] addresses the physical layer for "proximity space-to-space links". Since MCC is mentioned I guess that Proximity-1 is not the only candidate.
> Please clarify which scenarios are really addressed by this clause and coordinate with Enrico Vassalo (SLS-RFM chair) for the applicable standards.
> Moreover, is it correct to address frequencies in normative clause without identifying the complete stack from the voice/audio application down to the physical layer?
> Note that if you want to consider the complete stack there are at least Encapsulation Service, TM, TC, AOS to be cited.
>
> In 5.1 the sentence <In cases involving landers, rovers, orbiting constellations, and orbiting relays, proximity links should be considered (references [20], [21], [22].) > is correct but how is this visible to the voice/audio application that is recommended to run over IPoC, DTN or File Xfer? Can the voice/audio application be really aware of the details of the layers immediately below those of the expected services (i.e. IPoC, DTN, CFDP, etc.)?
>
>
>
> From: "Scott, Keith L." <kscott at mitre.org <mailto:kscott at mitre.org>>
> To: "Secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:Secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org>" <Secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:Secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org>>, "Thomas Gannett" <tomg at aiaa.org <mailto:tomg at aiaa.org>>,
> Cc: "sis-mia at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:sis-mia at mailman.ccsds.org>" <sis-mia at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:sis-mia at mailman.ccsds.org>>, "CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec \(cesg at mailman.ccsds.org\ <mailto:cesg at mailman.ccsds.org/>)" <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>>, "Osvaldo Peinado \(osvaldo.peinado at dlr.de\ <mailto:osvaldo.peinado at dlr.de/>)" <osvaldo.peinado at dlr.de <mailto:osvaldo.peinado at dlr.de>>
> Date: 24/11/2014 14:54
> Subject: [CESG] SIS Resolution to submit Voice and Audio Communications Red Book for processing and CESG Polling for Agency Review (SIS-R-2014-11-003)
> Sent by: cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>
>
>
>
>
> CCSDS Secretariat,
>
> The SIS Area, on the recommendation of the Voice and Audio Communications Working Group, resolves (via SIS resolution SIS-R-2014-11-003) to submit the attached Red Book for document processing and CESG polling to release the document for agency review.
>
> I believe that Cynthia Sachs-Bustos should have the sources for the drawing in the book. If not then we can provide them.
>
> Very respectfully,
>
> --keith
>
>
>
> Dr. Keith Scott Office: +1.703.983.6547
> Chief Engineer, J86A Fax: +1.703.983.7142
> Communications Network Engineering & Analysis Email: 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/tech/mii/pki/>
>
>
>
> From: Keith Scott [mailto:keithlscott at gmail.com <mailto:keithlscott at gmail.com>]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 6:44 PM
> To: Scott, Keith L.
> Subject: Fwd: Voice and audio communication book for CESG review
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: <osvaldo.peinado at dlr.de <mailto:osvaldo.peinado at dlr.de>>
> Date: Nov 19, 2014 5:29 AM
> Subject: Voice and audio communication book for CESG review
> To: <tomg at aiaa.org <mailto:tomg at aiaa.org>>
> Cc: <aid at mcc.rsa.ru <mailto:aid at mcc.rsa.ru>>, <keithlscott at gmail.com <mailto:keithlscott at gmail.com>>, <cynthia at sachs-bustos.com <mailto:cynthia at sachs-bustos.com>>
>
> Hi Tom
> As we talk with Keith, here is the book ready for your magic.
> We have several review cycles with Cynthia before the meeting in London and I got today all the final inputs from the WG member.
> Thanks a lot for your support
> Best Regards
> Osvaldo
>
>
>
> Dr. Osvaldo Peinado
> Ground Operations Manager
> German Space Operations Center (GSOC)
> Tel: +49 8153 28 3010 <tel:%2B49%208153%2028%203010>
> Fax: +49 8153 28 1456 <tel:%2B49%208153%2028%201456>
> Mobile: +491729410099 <tel:%2B491729410099>
> German Aerospace Center (DLR)
> Oberpfaffenhofen
> 82234 Wessling
> Germany
> [attachment "CCSDS 766.2-R-0-november.doc" deleted by Gian Paolo Calzolari/esoc/ESA]_______________________________________________
> CESG mailing list
> CESG at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:CESG at mailman.ccsds.org>
> http://mailman.ccsds.org/mailman/listinfo/cesg <http://mailman.ccsds.org/mailman/listinfo/cesg>
> This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee or addressees only.
> The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in whole or in part) of its
> content is not permitted.
> If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system.
> Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the sender.
>
> Please consider the environment before printing this email.
> This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee or addressees only.
> The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in whole or in part) of its
> content is not permitted.
> If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system.
> Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the sender.
>
> Please consider the environment before printing this email.
> This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee or addressees only.
> The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in whole or in part) of its
> content is not permitted.
> If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system.
> Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the sender.
>
> Please consider the environment before printing this email.
> _______________________________________________
> Sis-dtn mailing list
> Sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:Sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org>
> http://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sis-dtn <http://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sis-dtn>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sis-dtn/attachments/20141126/b2b38ee7/attachment.html>
More information about the SIS-DTN
mailing list