[Sis-dtn] FW: [EXT] Re: CESG-P-2025-01-004 Approval to publish CCSDS 734.20-O-1, CCSDS Bundle Protocol Version 7 Specification (Orange Book, Issue 1)

Thu Feb 6 17:49:28 UTC 2025

Folks,

Attached is the Orange Book draft as of the end of our call today.  Below is my note to Ignacio seeking his concurrence with our revisions in response to his comments.  

Also, regarding RIDs received related to SPP and EPP, this seems most relevant:

Reviewer Name

Reviewer Email

RID #

Paragraph Number

RID Short Title

From

To

Supporting Analysis

Fact

Recommended

Editorial

Discussion

Felix Flentge

felix.flentge at esa.int <mailto:felix.flentge at esa.int> 

107

PAGE NUMBER: B2-B3
PARAGRAPH NUMBER:  B2.1.4 – B2.1.6

CLA Description Service Interface

For LTP, SPP and EPP the description of the Convergence Layer Adapters in Annex B shall make use of the respective service interfaces of those protocols.
Also, the current description seems to be not covering specific aspects of some of these protocols, eg the use of secondary headers in SPP.

CCSDS protocols define service interfaces which should make it easier to clearly describe how a certain protocol will be used.

1

Annex B 2.1.4 (LTP), B 2.1.5 (SPP), B 2.1.6 (EPP) will be updated to define the CLA’s usage of the underlying CCSDS via its service interface (requests and indications). This will not change the proposed encapsulation of bundles as SDU in PDU of the underlying protocols but may clarify the use of some of the available options. 

Add CFDP UT introductions to LTP, SPP, EPP sections.

Some work to do here…

Best,

Bob

From: Robert C Durst 
Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2025 12:23 PM
To: Ignacio.Aguilar.Sanchez at esa.int
Cc: sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org; Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de
Subject: RE: [EXT] Re: CESG-P-2025-01-004 Approval to publish CCSDS 734.20-O-1, CCSDS Bundle Protocol Version 7 Specification (Orange Book, Issue 1)

Hi Ignacio,

Thanks for your comments on the draft BPv7 Orange Book.  We believe that we have addressed your comments in the attached update to the draft.  Could you please look at our proposed updates in response to your comments – refer to sections 2.2, 2.4, and 3.2.2 and let us know if this resolves your concerns.

Please note that we are addressing additional comments related to other sections of the document, and so the document may change in other areas (primarily the Convergence Layer Adapter annex).

We look forward to your response.  If you have questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at your convenience.  

Kind regards,

Bob Durst

Robert C. Durst

Chair, CCSDS SIS DTN Working Group

Chief Engineer, Infrastructure and Networking Innovation Center

The MITRE Corporation

Office: +1 703-983-7535

Mobile: +1 703-217-7414

Email:  <mailto:durst at mitre.org> durst at mitre.org

From: CCSDS Secretariat <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net <mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net> > 
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2025 11:51 AM
To: Robert C Durst <durst at mitre.org <mailto:durst at mitre.org> >
Cc: Ignacio.Aguilar.Sanchez at esa.int <mailto:Ignacio.Aguilar.Sanchez at esa.int> 
Subject: [EXT] Re: CESG-P-2025-01-004 Approval to publish CCSDS 734.20-O-1, CCSDS Bundle Protocol Version 7 Specification (Orange Book, Issue 1)

Dear Document Rapporteur, The CESG poll to approve publication of CCSDS 734. 20-O-1, CCSDS Bundle Protocol Version 7 Specification (Orange Book, Issue 1) concluded with conditions. Please negotiate disposition of the conditions directly with

Dear Document Rapporteur,

The CESG poll to approve publication of CCSDS 734.20-O-1, CCSDS Bundle Protocol Version 7 Specification (Orange Book, Issue 1) concluded with conditions. Please negotiate disposition of the conditions directly with the AD(s) who voted to approve with conditions and CC the Secretariat on all related correspondence.

CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2025-01-004 Approval to publish CCSDS 734.20-O-1, CCSDS Bundle Protocol Version 7 Specification (Orange Book, Issue 1)

Results of CESG poll beginning 6 January 2025 and ending 27 January 2025:

                 Abstain:  0 (0%)  
 Approve Unconditionally:  3 (75%) (Barkley, Cola, Singh)
 Approve with Conditions:  1 (25%) (Aguilar Sanchez)
 Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)  

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

     Erik Barkley (Approve Unconditionally):  Let me emphasize this is not a condition.  I will note that CESG may wish to discuss how to properly track the addtion of "orange" extenstions into "blue" registries -- the organge book here indicates new fields for the SANA SS&A registry.  That's fine, but as an "experimental" recommendation, is the new information also considered "experimental"?  (Note that there has never been a CCSDS data management policy developed, and I think this is another example of why a data management policy is needed).

     Ignacio Aguilar Sanchez (Approve with Conditions):  Condition 1. On subsection 2.2, second paragraph it is mentioned that a bundle endpoint can have zero bundle nodes. Can you explain why and eventually document the answer in an approprite place of the document?

Condition 2. On the same paragraph referred to above, the notion of 'anonymous' bundles is mentioned. Can you explain why such bundles are needed and what is their purpose? Again please document the answer in an appropriate place of the document.

Condition 3. On subsection 2.4, the services not supported by this specification are stated. The paragraph underneath points to reliable CLAs and/or application-level reliability mechanism to improve reliability. Does reliability imply the provision of services a), b) and c) mentioned above? Please confirm.

Condition 4. Sentence in clause 3.2.2 is not understood. Is the purpose to deny only or to support only bundles with dtn:none? Depending on the answer there might be a typo on the verb used in the sentence or perhaps a rephrase may be needed. Note that I am not a native English speaker.

     Simon Singh (Approve Unconditionally):  This is being published to meet the requrements of LunaNet community. However, it does requre some corrections. My understanding is that these corrections can be provided as Errata Sheets and that LunaNet community has agreed to it. Alternative would be to correct the document before publishing it. SIS can decide the best way forward. 

This is revision of my earlier vote, although the approval rating has not changed.

This is being published to meet the requrements of LunaNet community. However, it does requre some corrections, provided as comments in the attached document. LunaNet community has been provided with a draft copy of the document, i.e. the version which is the subject of this poll. Recommendation is that attached comments should be addressed in the publication of the Orange Book. 

Total Respondents:  4

No response was received from the following Area(s):

     SEA
     MOIMS
     SOIS

SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Approved with Conditions
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            Generate CMC poll after conditions have been addressed

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sis-dtn/attachments/20250206/3257447e/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: BPv7_Orange_Book_Draft_GSFC_review + MSN_rcd.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 217198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sis-dtn/attachments/20250206/3257447e/attachment-0001.docx>
-------------- 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/20250206/3257447e/attachment-0001.bin>