From Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de  Fri Aug  1 09:49:45 2025
From: Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de (Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de)
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2025 09:49:45 +0000
Subject: [Sis-dtn] Telecon 20250731
In-Reply-To: <CAHdkBBmDXYscSLCxUVNwUmxAEvrbv_-A0epMEC+YvNTamgXHxA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHdkBBmDXYscSLCxUVNwUmxAEvrbv_-A0epMEC+YvNTamgXHxA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8f377e3e7aa046f1b4ee258d08889780@dlr.de>

Thank you Keith & Scott for the great work in editing the annex.

There are still a few remaining comments in Sections 3.9 and 3.10, which however are pretty much about formatting and I can fix them myself. In particular in Section 3.9, we have the following note, where we forgot to add the reference to SDLS documents:

Since this specification was published, new security mechanisms have emerged or are being developed and standardized in CCSDS for the data link layer (reference SDLS ? informative reference?) and the bundle layer (BPSec). Implementors may want to omit LTP security in favor of the newer capabilities.

My idea here would be to refer to the SDLS green book and to add it to the list of informative references:

CCSDS 350.5-G-2             Space Data Link Security Protocol?Summary of Concept and Rationale

Please let me know if you prefer to use a different reference, e.g., the SDLS blue book.

Regards,

Tomaso

From: SIS-DTN <sis-dtn-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> On Behalf Of Keith Scott via SIS-DTN
Sent: Donnerstag, 31. Juli 2025 18:58
To: sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org
Subject: [Sis-dtn] Telecon 20250731


LTP Corrigendum

We took out the 'shall' language and replaced it with requests or affirmative language.



We removed 'node' and the sort of implicit linkage to RASDS and used an engine ID POC (EPOC instead of NPOC).



Edits attached,



    --keith


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sis-dtn/attachments/20250801/f3b614fb/attachment.htm>

From sburleig.sb at gmail.com  Fri Aug  1 13:44:21 2025
From: sburleig.sb at gmail.com (sburleig.sb at gmail.com)
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2025 06:44:21 -0700
Subject: [Sis-dtn] Telecon 20250731
In-Reply-To: <8f377e3e7aa046f1b4ee258d08889780@dlr.de>
References: <CAHdkBBmDXYscSLCxUVNwUmxAEvrbv_-A0epMEC+YvNTamgXHxA@mail.gmail.com>
 <8f377e3e7aa046f1b4ee258d08889780@dlr.de>
Message-ID: <17a901dc02ea$633b0f50$29b12df0$@gmail.com>

Thanks, Tomaso.  I think referencing the green book makes sense, as this recommendation is not normative upon LTP; the LTP implementer who wants to use SDLS will be able to navigate from the green book to the blue book.

 

Scott

 

From: SIS-DTN <sis-dtn-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> On Behalf Of Tomaso de Cola via SIS-DTN
Sent: Friday, August 1, 2025 2:50 AM
To: keithlscott at gmail.com
Cc: sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org
Subject: Re: [Sis-dtn] Telecon 20250731

 

Thank you Keith & Scott for the great work in editing the annex.

 

There are still a few remaining comments in Sections 3.9 and 3.10, which however are pretty much about formatting and I can fix them myself. In particular in Section 3.9, we have the following note, where we forgot to add the reference to SDLS documents:

 

Since this specification was published, new security mechanisms have emerged or are being developed and standardized in CCSDS for the data link layer (reference SDLS ? informative reference?) and the bundle layer (BPSec). Implementors may want to omit LTP security in favor of the newer capabilities. 

 

My idea here would be to refer to the SDLS green book and to add it to the list of informative references:

 

CCSDS 350.5-G-2             Space Data Link Security Protocol?Summary of Concept and Rationale

 

Please let me know if you prefer to use a different reference, e.g., the SDLS blue book.

 

Regards,

 

Tomaso

 

From: SIS-DTN <sis-dtn-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:sis-dtn-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> > On Behalf Of Keith Scott via SIS-DTN
Sent: Donnerstag, 31. Juli 2025 18:58
To: sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org> 
Subject: [Sis-dtn] Telecon 20250731

 

LTP Corrigendum

We took out the 'shall' language and replaced it with requests or affirmative language.

 

We removed 'node' and the sort of implicit linkage to RASDS and used an engine ID POC (EPOC instead of NPOC).

 

Edits attached,

 

    --keith

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sis-dtn/attachments/20250801/6d2eea91/attachment.htm>

From Howard.Weiss at parsons.us  Fri Aug  1 13:57:57 2025
From: Howard.Weiss at parsons.us (Howard.Weiss at parsons.us)
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2025 13:57:57 +0000
Subject: [Sis-dtn] [EXTERNAL]  Re:  Telecon 20250731
In-Reply-To: <17a901dc02ea$633b0f50$29b12df0$@gmail.com>
References: <CAHdkBBmDXYscSLCxUVNwUmxAEvrbv_-A0epMEC+YvNTamgXHxA@mail.gmail.com>
 <8f377e3e7aa046f1b4ee258d08889780@dlr.de>
 <17a901dc02ea$633b0f50$29b12df0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BN2P110MB1239D7332481EA1ED2EBAE89E226A@BN2P110MB1239.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>

Or for completeness, just reference both the SDLS Blue and Green Books (one stop shoping for the reader).

howie

From: SIS-DTN <sis-dtn-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> On Behalf Of sburleig.sb--- via SIS-DTN
Sent: Friday, August 1, 2025 9:44 AM
To: Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de; keithlscott at gmail.com
Cc: sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Sis-dtn] Telecon 20250731

Thanks, Tomaso.  I think referencing the green book makes sense, as this recommendation is not normative upon LTP; the LTP implementer who wants to use SDLS will be able to navigate from the green book to the blue book.

Scott

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: Friday, August 1, 2025 2:50 AM
To: keithlscott at gmail.com<mailto:keithlscott at gmail.com>
Cc: sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: Re: [Sis-dtn] Telecon 20250731

Thank you Keith & Scott for the great work in editing the annex.

There are still a few remaining comments in Sections 3.9 and 3.10, which however are pretty much about formatting and I can fix them myself. In particular in Section 3.9, we have the following note, where we forgot to add the reference to SDLS documents:

Since this specification was published, new security mechanisms have emerged or are being developed and standardized in CCSDS for the data link layer (reference SDLS ? informative reference?) and the bundle layer (BPSec). Implementors may want to omit LTP security in favor of the newer capabilities.

My idea here would be to refer to the SDLS green book and to add it to the list of informative references:

CCSDS 350.5-G-2             Space Data Link Security Protocol?Summary of Concept and Rationale

Please let me know if you prefer to use a different reference, e.g., the SDLS blue book.

Regards,

Tomaso

From: SIS-DTN <sis-dtn-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:sis-dtn-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>> On Behalf Of Keith Scott via SIS-DTN
Sent: Donnerstag, 31. Juli 2025 18:58
To: sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: [Sis-dtn] Telecon 20250731


LTP Corrigendum

We took out the 'shall' language and replaced it with requests or affirmative language.



We removed 'node' and the sort of implicit linkage to RASDS and used an engine ID POC (EPOC instead of NPOC).



Edits attached,



    --keith



"NOTICE: This email message and all attachments transmitted with it may contain confidential information, including information that is privileged or protected by, and proprietary to, Parsons Corporation, and is intended solely for the use of the addressee for the specific purpose set forth in this communication. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading, dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited, and you should delete this message and all copies and backups thereof. The recipient may not further distribute or use any of the information contained herein without the express written authorization of the sender. If you have received this message in error, or if you have any questions regarding the use of the proprietary information contained therein, please contact the sender of this message immediately, and the sender will provide you with further instructions."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sis-dtn/attachments/20250801/1a4031d1/attachment-0001.htm>