[Sis-dtn] 28 March SIS-DTN telecon

[Robert C Durst]

All,

 

I have arranged for someone to open the telecon line tomorrow, but I won't
be able to attend due to a conflict.  

 

*If* it seems like there is a quorum:

 

1.	Please consider the draft agenda send previously and send me email
if there are issues that need addressed.

 

2.	Also, Leigh Torgerson sent the following comment on the BPv7 blue
book that I think merits some consideration.  We can discuss during the BPv7
discussion at the CCSDS meeting, but I'd like folks to consider this
beforehand:

 

Subject: CCSDS BP Specs - late agency review comment

I wish to note that while BPv6 is, I assume, deprecated (where does it say
that in any CCSDS docs, by the way?), we still have missions and users
flying BPv6, and in the future continued support for bpv6 is required.

 

If a user wishes to write a new application that is designed for BPv6, do we
put in the contract to write something that is compatible with BP as
specified by 734.2-B-1 (which does not indicate any particular version of BP
in its title), and then on another project using BPv7 specify 734.2-P-1.1
(which has the same title as 734.2-B-1)?? Do you seriously think that won't
be confusing??

 

If you are going to change a protocol in such a dramatic manner as to
completely eliminate backward compatibility, from a System Engineering point
of view, and as one who has to help both projects and the DSN do the formal
documentation of what service agreements are with external customers, I
believe CCSDS is making a bad mistake not giving the Bluebooks SEPARATE
numbers and titles that indicate that the specification is for a particular
protocol that is totally incompatible with another protocol with the same
CCSDS book name.

 

The recommendation is therefore to Change the title of the current BPv7
draft specification to "CCSDS BUNDLE PROTOCOL v7 SPECIFICATION", assign it a
new and non-confusing CCSDS book number, and then to add to the title of the
existing 2015 BPv6 734.2-B-1 the indication that it is for BPv6.

 

This would be both sound System Engineering practice, as well as sound
contractual practice in accordance with both FARs and UCC regulations.

 

Resulting questions:

1)      Should we publish BPv7 as a separately numbered Blue Book rather
than an update to the previous Blue Book?

2)      Should we revise the Blue Book to retain support for both versions?
(I haven't begun to consider what *that* does to naming and so forth.)

3)      Should BPv6 be reaffirmed or eventually be transitioned to Silver
(historical) status?  If Silver, when?

4)      What is the IETF posture on BPv6 (RFC 5050)?  It is listed as an
experimental protocol, while RFC9171 is  "standards track," but not yet an
internet standard.  There is no attempt in the IETF to maintain backward
compatibility, because nothing in the IETF world is using BPv6
operationally, unlike the CCSDS world.

If there's not a quorum, please ponder these and we'll return to them later.

 

Thank you!
Bob

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sis-dtn/attachments/20240327/dc0a9188/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 7596 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sis-dtn/attachments/20240327/dc0a9188/attachment-0001.bin>