[Sis-dtn] Fwd: [Cesg-all] Results of CESG Polls closing 14 September 2023

[Keith Scott]

*SANA Registry for LTP Engine IDs:*

Yeah, I like Felix's solution in the most recent draft of the BPv7 Orange
Book that I could find:

>From Orange Book Draft: BPv7_Orange_Book_Draft_FF.docx

D2 SANA CONSIDERATIONS
SANA provides a node number registry that uses a space delegated to it by
IANA for the registration of node numbers.  While this registry is
sufficient to prevent the unintentional reuse of node numbers across
missions, it does not provide any information about the capabilities (e.g.,
convergence layer adapters, supported extension blocks, scheduled routing
schedules, supported services) of specific nodes, including information
about how to connect to such nodes.
To provide a link between sites supporting BP nodes and points of contact
that can provide the information needed to communicate with the nodes, it
is proposed to leverage the Service Sites and Apertures (SS&A) registry of
SANA.  For sites supporting BP services, the existing fields in the Service
Site and Apertures registry will be used to identify the node and the point
of contact.
To support the linkage between Node Numbers and points of contact who can
provide information about how to connect to those nodes it is requested
that SANA add a field to the Site Services portion of the SS&A that
contains a list of the Node Numbers of the BP nodes at the site.  Users
should also be able to query the SS&A registry for the sites providing BP
services.
It should be noted that the union of all of the node numbers referred to by
the various entries in the SS&A registry constitutes the set of all CCSDS
bundle nodes that a user might need to know of in order to participate in
the network.  More specifically, agencies are expected to register any
terrestrial BP infrastructure that might be used in cross-support
activities in the SS&A registry.
This document also requests that SANA add a point of contact column to the
CBHE node numbers registry for each allocated CBHE node range.

If we just rewrite the above for LTP engine ID's we should be set (assuming
that the Orange book text is acceptable).  If not then something like Bob's
text could be used, but I think (at least eventually) consistency between
the two (the SANA rules for tracking LTP Engine IDs and ION Node Numbers)
would be beneficial.

*Section 3.10*

OK, I think what she did is good and correct.  I would use: "3.10.4
AUTOMATIC CANCELLATION OF IDLE SESSIONS" as the heading for 3.10.4, but
that's a minor editorial suggestion.

Yeah, let's work the SANA question at a telecon soon (although maybe
post-August if we want Felix et. al).

v/r,


    --keith


On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 10:05 PM Tomaso de Cola via SIS-DTN <
sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org> wrote:

> CESG review of LTP corrigendum completed. One condition from Peter:
>
> Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions):  The registration process defined
> in Sec 3.6 of this document is completely inadequate for the purpose.  "LTP
> Engine IDs" are allocated by the SANA.  So far so good.  But the SANA LTP
> Engine Registry (https://sanaregistry.org/r/ltp_engineid/) only records a
> range of numbers assigned to some organization.  There is no: 1) PoC at
> that organization to make a request of, 2) guidance as to how those numbers
> are assigned nor what records must be kept, 3) registry of assigned IDs, 4)
> ""location of assigned IDs.  This really must be fixed if this is to be a
> useful operational registry.
>
> To be discussed in next telcos
>
> Tomaso
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From:* CCSDS Secretariat via CESG-All <cesg-all at mailman.ccsds.org>
> *Date:* 15. September 2023 at 20:56:37 CEST
> *To:* cesg-all at mailman.ccsds.org
> *Cc:* CCSDS Secretariat <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>
> *Subject:* *[Cesg-all] Results of CESG Polls closing 14 September 2023*
> *Reply-To:* secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org
>
> Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions):  The registration process defined
> in Sec 3.6 of this document is completely inadequate for the purpose.  "LTP
> Engine IDs" are allocated by the SANA.  So far so good.  But the SANA LTP
> Engine Registry (https://sanaregistry.org/r/ltp_engineid/) only records a
> range of numbers assigned to some organization.  There is no: 1) PoC at
> that organization to make a request of, 2) guidance as to how those numbers
> are assigned nor what records must be kept, 3) registry of assigned IDs, 4)
> ""location of assigned IDs.  This really must be fixed if this is to be a
> useful operational registry.
>
> _______________________________________________
> SIS-DTN mailing list
> SIS-DTN at mailman.ccsds.org
> https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sis-dtn
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sis-dtn/attachments/20250728/4abd58f1/attachment.htm>