[Sis-dtn] SIS-DTN Telecon 20210324

[Felix.Flentge at esa.int]

Hi Keith,

maybe there has been something wrong with the link in the invitation. 
Teams was telling me the whole time that the meeting did not start yet.

Regards,
Felix



From:   "Dr. Keith L Scott" <kscott at mitre.org>
To:     "sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org" <sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org>
Date:   24/03/2021 18:20
Subject:        [Sis-dtn] SIS-DTN Telecon 20210324
Sent by:        "SIS-DTN" <sis-dtn-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>



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
 
The MITRE Corporation
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?
 
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?
?
??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

?
 
 _______________________________________________
SIS-DTN mailing list
SIS-DTN at mailman.ccsds.org
https://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/20210325/1345abac/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 11918 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sis-dtn/attachments/20210325/1345abac/attachment-0001.bin>