[Sis-dtn] [EXT] RE: SIS-DTN Input to SIS report to CESG

Tue May 16 00:26:07 UTC 2023

Thanks Bob for putting together this summary of last week’s meetings and for the productive discussion.

One additional comment: I find the acronym HTP too similar to LTP (and HTTP), which may cause confusion. I have no problem naming the protocol after Adrian Hook, but I would prefer to have a completely new name rather than one that reuses 2/3 of the words in the current protocol name.

Thanks,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Sanchez Net (332H)
Telecommunications Engineer
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Cell: (617) 953-7977<mailto:(617)%20953-7977> | Email: marc.sanchez.net at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:marc.sanchez.net at jpl.nasa.gov>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: SIS-DTN <sis-dtn-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> On Behalf Of Robert C Durst via SIS-DTN
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2023 5:20 AM
To: Felix Flentge <Felix.Flentge at esa.int>; Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de
Cc: sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Sis-dtn] [EXT] RE: SIS-DTN Input to SIS report to CESG

Concur with Felix’s points below. Thanks, Felix!  Unsure why the last 3 were “hidden” in the template I received, but I undid that setting in the update.

Best,
Bob

Get Outlook for iOS<https://urldefense.us/v3/__https:/aka.ms/o0ukef__;!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!Ilpe-XA4UWshSTiXG_9MhX2cnU3hfV7XhK5mH069Ty958T-IY5GI_b-L2uWl93SSTfYGR3mPPrJJFAF92JZx_pwzVjNoSRE$>
________________________________
From: Felix Flentge <Felix.Flentge at esa.int<mailto:Felix.Flentge at esa.int>>
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2023 3:39 AM
To: Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de<mailto:Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de> <Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de<mailto:Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de>>; Robert C Durst <durst at mitre.org<mailto:durst at mitre.org>>
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>>
Subject: [EXT] RE: SIS-DTN Input to SIS report to CESG

Regards,
Felix

From: Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de<mailto:Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de> <Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de<mailto:Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de>>
Sent: 15 May 2023 09:31
To: Felix Flentge <Felix.Flentge at esa.int<mailto:Felix.Flentge at esa.int>>; durst at mitre.org<mailto:durst at mitre.org>
Cc: sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: AW: SIS-DTN Input to SIS report to CESG

Hi Felix, Bob,

My comments below (I’m merging all slides until this afternoon (Europe Time), so we have quite some time to accommodate any possible additional improvements):

In a previous e-mail, I was mistakenly requesting to indicate dates of the various projects which are in fact already there. Admittedly I opened the powerpoint from my mobile phone that for unknown reasons did not show the last three slides about the projects :\

Slide 2: I’ll add a ‘-W’ for HTP.
FF: should be ‘optical comms – W’

Slide 3 about the BPSEC security profile: We can say that “it should be aligned to RFC 9173 or CCSDS 352.0-B-2, with possible support of COSE, for finalization in view of the first agency review of BPsec”. Would it make sense?
FF: Yes, it should be TBD with the Security WG and it is AFAIK anyway very similar

Slide 4 about HTP. I think in principle it’s up to the WG to select any name they like. I will make this proposal and if there any objections at CESG level, we’ll re-discuss this in the DTN weekly, since in any case this will have to be reflected in the content of the corresponding orange book, whose book to be created next. As to the data rate, we may say 10+ Gbps. If I’m not wrong the objective of HRLTP project was a target of 10 Gbps and the power vectors used to characterize the physical layer were tailored to such a data rate. For higher data rates slightly different power profiles should be instead considered. Nevertheless, I don’t think that the protocol operations would be affected by a slightly different channel profile, that’s why I’d propose 10+.
FF: agree

Slide 5: concerning first/last hop, I understand it is going to start, i.e a resolution should be issued to seek the approval for this project. Am I right?
FF: No: we hope to find another WG to do the work; I assume the need will be conformed by IOAG with the Service Catalog #2 updates; I think candidate areas are CSTS or MOIMS

For the multipoint/multidestination point, we have to take a decision since this will affect the name of the project (and more importantly of the book). The points made by Scott make sense to me so that I’d be more in favour of using ‘multi-point”. In case of other rationale to use instead multi-destination please let me know until 09.00 (EDT). If I don’t hear anything until then I will use “multi-point”. This is in any case for CESG, if we want later (but before we create the project) to have a different name we can certainly do it.

Your comments obviously very welcome!

Tomaso

Von: Felix Flentge <Felix.Flentge at esa.int<mailto:Felix.Flentge at esa.int>>
Gesendet: Montag, 15. Mai 2023 08:46
An: de Cola, Tomaso <Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de<mailto:Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de>>; durst at mitre.org<mailto:durst at mitre.org>
Cc: sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org>
Betreff: RE: SIS-DTN Input to SIS report to CESG

Hi Bob & All,

Thanks for chairing the intensive DTN meetings; I think we have achieved very good results aligning with mission needs in view of the limited resources!

I have a few minor comments on the slides (if it is not too late):

Slide 2: Hooke Transmission Protocol, need: please add ‘optical communication – W’
Slide 3: BPSEC security profile: I am not sure if it will be a profile of RfC 9173. IMHO, we should try to align with CCSDS 352.0-B-2 CCSDS Cryptographic Algorithms (which may turn out to be similar to RfC 9173) + maybe COSE.
Slide 4: Hooke Transmission Protocol:

I am fine with the proposed name but I assume that should be agreed at CESG / CMC. I would also like that Jeremy has a say as he spent a lot of time working this out.

I am not sure whether we achieved the 30 Gbps or not (10 we did for sure; higher rates are currently limited by the network I think) but I think it is worth mentioning that we have a prototypic implementation in FPGA and a ground implementation in software

We need to create a new project for the orange book.
Slide 5: for the previously-planned work items: maybe it is worth to mention ‘CCSDS Delivery Agent (First-Hop / Last-Hop services)’ to start making other areas aware)

Regards,
Felix

From: SIS-DTN <sis-dtn-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:sis-dtn-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>> On Behalf Of Tomaso de Cola via SIS-DTN
Sent: 13 May 2023 17:21
To: durst at mitre.org<mailto:durst at mitre.org>
Cc: sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: Re: [Sis-dtn] SIS-DTN Input to SIS report to CESG

Hi Bob, all,

I indeed acknowledge it has been a very intense and fruitful CCSDS DTN meeting! Many thanks to all of you for the very good discussions!

As to the prepared slides, the are very detailed and complete, probably I’ll make some statements more coincise as I have a short slot to present all SIS WGs.

Just some requests/clarifications:

1) I need in any case updated dates for the active projects. As mentioned in the chat yesterday probably BPv7 and BPsec could be approved for publication around Spring 2024. The orange CBR possibly already Q1-2024. All the others I guess later, maybe end 2024?
2) for the future projects I understand the plan is to have only orange books for HTP (Hooke is for Adrian Hooke?) and multi-destination, I.e. all other current drafts should disappear, isn’t it? In any case for these draft projects I need estimated dates for start and end. Typically for orange book 1-year duration is ok.
3) resolutions: they can be issued only when corresponding material/content is ready, I.e. BPsec book ready for agency review. As such all proposed resolutions are for the near future, not of immediate execution. For the creation of the planned future orange book project we can iterate during next week. I can tell you already we need start/end, description, agency in charge of editing the book.

Best,

Tomaso
Sent from my iPhone

On 13. May 2023, at 13:31, Robert C Durst <durst at mitre.org<mailto:durst at mitre.org>> wrote:

I neglected to mention the resolution to reaffirm LTP with the corrigendum that is under review within the WG.  I added that, along with the WG motto for the week:  “Orange is the New Blue.”  (Depending on the sense of humor of the CESG, you may want to strike that remark, which is at the top of slide 2…

Best,
Bob

From: Robert C Durst
Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2023 1:37 AM
To: Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de<mailto:Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de>
Cc: sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: SIS-DTN Input to SIS report to CESG

Tomaso,

Thanks to the members of the SIS-DTN WG for what I consider to be an enormously productive meeting, and thanks especially for helping me to get up to speed as WG chair.

Attached please find the SIS-DTN report for incorporation into your SIS report to the CESG.  Apologies for the length, but there is much to report and update.

The key resolutions coming out of this meeting are as follows:
Submit BPSec for Agency Review
Charter DTN Multi-Destination Orange Book work item

Do you formulate those resolutions or do we?  What is needed to charter the DTN Multi-Destination (aka, but don’t call it, multicast)?  If I need to formulate those resolutions, by when do you need them?  (And can you point me toward a somewhat current example?)

You will note that we have had to be rather ruthless in deferring or eliminating work items that do not seem feasible to complete in the context of the needs and need dates we identified during our review of mission capability needs.  If these need further explanation/rationale, please let me know.

If you have any questions, please call me at +1 703-217-7414.  I will be flying between about 8am and noon CDT tomorrow (Saturday).

Thanks and best regards,
Bob
<d01-Area-Report-to-CESG Spring 2023-SIS_DTN.pptx>
This message is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. It may contain proprietary information and/or protected content. Any unauthorised disclosure, use, retention or dissemination is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately. ESA applies appropriate organisational measures to protect personal data, in case of data privacy queries, please contact the ESA Data Protection Officer (dpo at esa.int<mailto:dpo at esa.int>).
This message is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. It may contain proprietary information and/or protected content. Any unauthorised disclosure, use, retention or dissemination is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately. ESA applies appropriate organisational measures to protect personal data, in case of data privacy queries, please contact the ESA Data Protection Officer (dpo at esa.int<mailto:dpo at esa.int>).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sis-dtn/attachments/20230516/6e4c00a5/attachment-0001.htm>