[Sis-dtn] SIS-DTN Telecon 20210324

[Dr. Keith L Scott]

We had a lightly-attended SIS-DTN mtg today.  Notes are here: https://cwe.ccsds.org/fm/wiki/SitePages/20210324.aspx and below.

                        v/r,

                        --keith



Dr. Keith Scott
L110 Chief Architect, Advanced Networking for Assured Communications
Office:    703.983.6547
Cell:        301.437.4472
Email:     kscott at mitre.org<mailto:kscott at mitre.org>

The MITRE Corporation<http://www.mitre.org/>
M/S J500
7596 Colshire Drive
McLean, VA 22102

MITRE self-signs its own certificates.  Information about the MITRE PKI Certificate Chain is available from https://www.mitre.org/tech/mii/pki/


​SIS-DTN WG Mtg20210324

SIS-DTN Home​<https://cwe.ccsds.org/fm/wiki/SitePages/SIS-DTN.aspx>

LTP
Updates to LTP Things List
Discussi​on: How many configurations should be mandatory to implement?

  *   Have one implementation (maybe the mandatory one?) use variable-length fields?
  *   What if we don’t mandate ANY required-to-implement configuration?
  *   Josh argues for at least one mandatory to ensure some interoperability
  *   Still no auto-negotiation of which profile to use -- that’s still configuration
  *   Stripped-down fixed-length field version for mandatory implementation would be OK.

Should CCSDS mandate implementation of at least one interoperable profile?
Pros:

  *   There would be at least one profile that you could guarantee would work with all LTP implementations.  A user picking up two LTP iplementations would be guaranteed that they could at least be made to interoperate (even if the mandatory profile doesn't produce particuarly good performance).
Cons:

  *   ​Requires implementers to implement something that they might not ever use.​
​Need to think on this more.
BPv7
​See the BPv7 Update Page​<https://cwe.ccsds.org/fm/wiki/SitePages/BPv7%20Update%202021.aspx>
​
​​Non-singleton-destination stuff in draft-31
Changes to dispatching and forwarding failed subsections
Inclusion of DTN URI Scheme (CCSDS spec required use of the ipn naming scheme); use of IMC naming scheme.
Discovery mechanism?  More targeted at human spaceflight / lunar exploration?  What link-layer mechanism to use (USLP?  USLP with some sort of modified COP?)  Need some sort of broadcast address?  Prox-1?
Something to force identification of connecting nodes at the CLA level?  Make them send a bundle with a previous-hop-block when you establish a connection?  Needs to be part of the (all?) CLA protocol(s).
@Keith: Cross-check this stuff with:​

  *   Lee's briefing at CCSDS last year
  *   Jonathan Wilmot's deisred capabilities
And build out a spreadsheet of

​


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sis-dtn/attachments/20210324/06605e9b/attachment-0001.htm>