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

[Keith Scott]

Yeah, let me reset:

The section 3.10 stuff -- cool.

D2:
I suspect that when we try to take BPv7 Blue we'll want to mimic the
(final) language from this section.  A problem for later.

Why not replace D2.1 with the following:

RFC 7116 (reference [7]) defines IANA registries for the Licklider
Transmission Protocol. Portions of those LTP registries have been allocated
to SANA for use on CCSDS missions. LTP defines an entity referred to as an
‘LTP Engine’ where each such engine is identified by an engine ID.

[This is an LTP document; we don't need to get into the mechanics of how
higher layers might USE LTP.]

D2.6: Shall seems OK to me, maybe better than requested to.

Re: capitalization of 'node': We should do whatever the BPv6 document did.

D2.6(i): If the LTP engine identifier space becomes more than 75%
allocated, the DTN WG chair....


  --keith

On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 10:51 AM <Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de> wrote:

> Hi Keith,
>
>
>
> I’m a bit lost here with your feedback, because actually the version that
> Bob shared to CESG was approved and then moved forward to CMC for their
> approval that also happened. Then, I forwarded you and Bob the final
> version commented by Natalya who is one of the now tech editors (i.e.
> replacing Tom Gannett), who placed a few comments here and there. Those
> related to remarks about the LTP colouring I’d say are quite
> straightforward. Those related to SANA are in my impression due to the fact
> that she is not much in the LTP business (in the end her role is that of
> tech editor) and as such we have to clarify with her what we meant so that,
> if necessary, she will make the necessary edits on the document, without
> however altering the content of that annex which was already approved by
> CESG/CMC.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Tomaso
>
>
>
> *From:* Keith Scott <keithlscott at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Montag, 28. Juli 2025 10:43
> *To:* de Cola, Tomaso <Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de>
> *Cc:* durst at mitre.org; sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Sis-dtn] Fwd: [Cesg-all] Results of CESG Polls closing 14
> September 2023
>
>
>
> *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/20250728/0a21d716/attachment.htm>