[Sis-dtn] Re: DTPC RID against BP-for-CCSDS

[Felix.Flentge at esa.int]

Dear Keith,

fine for me. I have been assuming that there are some practical reasons to 
have it in the BP book and I am happy to hear that there is also an 
implementation in DTN2.

Regards,
Felix
-- 
Dr. Felix Flentge
ESA/ESOC - European Space Agency / European Space Operations Centre
Human Spaceflight and Operations, Ground Segment Engineering Department, 
HSO-GIB
ESA/ESOC, Robert-Bosch-Strasse 5, D-64293 Darmstadt, Germany
Tel: +49 6151 90 3173
e-mail: Felix.Flentge at esa.int



From:   "Scott, Keith L." <kscott at mitre.org>
To:     "felix.flentge at esa.int" <felix.flentge at esa.int>, 
Cc:     "Chris Taylor (chris.taylor at esa.int)" <chris.taylor at esa.int>, 
"Pitts, Robert L. (MSFC-EO50)[HOSC SERVICES CONTRACT]" 
<robert.l.pitts at nasa.gov>, "sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org" 
<sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org>
Date:   17/10/2014 15:26
Subject:        DTPC RID against BP-for-CCSDS



Felix,
 
First, thanks very much for your review and RIDS on the BP-for-CCSDS book. 
 I think they?ve improved the book?s overall quality.
 
 
Regarding your RID against the Delay-Tolerant Payload Conditioning 
Specification:
I am wondering if  "Annex E Delay-Tolerant Payload Conditioning 
Specification" should not be a separate document. For me it is a specific 
way (an ?application service?) of how to apply BP and does not need to be 
part of the CCSDS BP Standard. Also, I am not sure about the maturity of 
that protocol (Has it been tested with two independent implementations?). 
So, it might be better to separate it (maybe as a Magenta Book) and have 
"independent lifecycles".
 
 
I think the WG?s current leaning is to reject the RID and keep the DTPC 
annex in the book.  I would concur that in a perfect world it would be 
split off as a separate book, but as I recall the capability was strongly 
desired and there was some concern about ?# of books explosion? and the 
agency review resources that would be needed if it were done separately. 
Also, removing the annex now would require another agency review.
 
There are two implementations of DTPC (ION and DTN2), and since it?s a 
normative part of the book it WILL be interoperability tested before the 
book goes Blue.
 
 
Given the above, I think the WG would like to reject the RID and keep DTPC 
in the current book.  Would you be able to concur with this?
 
                        Best Regards,
 
                                    --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
The MITRE Corporation                   M/S H300
7515 Colshire Drive
McLean, VA 22102
 
Area Director, CCSDS Space Internetworking Services
 
MITRE self-signs its own certificates.  Information about the MITRE PKI 
Certificate Chain is available from http://www.mitre.org/tech/mii/pki/
 
 

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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sis-dtn/attachments/20141017/ca902862/attachment.html>