[Sis-dtn] [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)

Fri Feb 7 09:10:42 UTC 2025

Dear All,

Indeed, the changes for SPP / EPP have been a result of this RID. From my point of view, it has been addressed, so the RID can be closed.

I have looked in the comments and I don’t think there is a real problem:

  *   It is clearly stated that no secondary header shall be used – this is common practice in CFDP already and it never caused issues afaik
  *   There is the wish to have fixed values for some parameters, like APID or VCs: while I am not opposing this, I believe this would require larger and lengthy discussions. My proposal is to keep it open for the time being but it could be brought to the attention of CESG if required. Please note, that for specific networks some of these values may be fixed (eg, VC for BP in LunaNet). However, here we are trying to specify a standard, so we might not want to go too much into the governance questions.
  *   While I think, the description is ok in terms of content, we may want to do some editorial changes to avoid confusion (eg, to make clear that some parts are non-normative and a mere repetition of text from SPP/EPP blue books). Some sections also effectively contain several requirement. Maybe those could be separated.
  *   I have attached the CFDP UT Layer Magenta Book (currently under Agency review) as an example. We could structure this even more like it is done there. If there are fundamental issues with SPP/EPP in the current text, we may have the same issues in that Magenta Book. In this case, please ensure that corresponding RIDs are raised on the CFDP Magenta Book (before March if possible)

Please see my detailed replies in the document.

Regards,
Felix

From: SIS-DTN <sis-dtn-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> On Behalf Of Robert C Durst via SIS-DTN
Sent: 06 February 2025 18:49
To: sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org
Subject: [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)

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<mailto:Ignacio.Aguilar.Sanchez at esa.int>
Cc: sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org>; Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de<mailto: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: durst at mitre.org<mailto: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

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

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).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sis-dtn/attachments/20250207/a090aadb/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: BPv7_Orange_Book_Draft_GSFC_review + MSN_rcd_FF.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 220736 bytes
Desc: BPv7_Orange_Book_Draft_GSFC_review + MSN_rcd_FF.docx
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sis-dtn/attachments/20250207/a090aadb/attachment-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 722x1m11_final.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 230400 bytes
Desc: 722x1m11_final.doc
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sis-dtn/attachments/20250207/a090aadb/attachment-0001.doc>