[Sis-dtn] DTN input to SIS report to CESG

Mon Jun 16 13:06:31 UTC 2025

Hi all,

Since we have requested and then received the approval for the orange book, I don’t think we can simply treat the orange as a backup option. At the time I compiled the orange book project, the rationale for it was that the BPsec blue could not go on without first IETF to solve the issue with the fragmentation.

Regards,

Tomaso
From: Felix Flentge <Felix.Flentge at esa.int>
Sent: Montag, 16. Juni 2025 08:06
To: Robert C Durst <durst at mitre.org>; de Cola, Tomaso <Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de>; sburleig.sb at gmail.com
Cc: sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org
Subject: RE: [Sis-dtn] DTN input to SIS report to CESG

Hi,

BPSEC: My understanding regarding BPSEC is that we try to proceed with the Blue Book and we just keep the option of an Orange Book in case there is a delay. To me, a fix to RfC 9171 fragmentation doesn’t seem too likely given our recent discussions

Management: My understanding is a to-be-defined coloured book for DTN (Node) Managed Information and a Green Book for (Concepts of) DTN Policy Management.

Regards,
Felix

From: SIS-DTN <sis-dtn-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:sis-dtn-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>> On Behalf Of Robert C Durst via SIS-DTN
Sent: 16 June 2025 01:08
To: Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de<mailto:Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de>; sburleig.sb at gmail.com<mailto:sburleig.sb at gmail.com>
Cc: sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: Re: [Sis-dtn] DTN input to SIS report to CESG

Re: BIBE - We will proceed with the document as is (BIBE, no segmentation). The jury is still out whether we do an Orange-2 to add segmentation or define a second CLA that segments or wait for IETF. But there’s value and need for the current state of the doc. Will have Josh send you the latest version of the text.

Re: Management - correct, we only discussed managed information, not the ADMs.

Re: BPSec - We discussed the BPSec Orange Book, and the WG wants to keep it, but feels we can meet the current need by resolving the existing fragmentation RID by forbidding the combination of fragmentation and BPSec. This seems like a practical near term solution for CCSDS, allowing us to address fragmentation with a combination of configuration parameters limiting ADU size and by using segmenting CLs, such as LTP. We want to use the Orange Book when a fix is defined in the IETF.

Hope this helps. Please let me know if you have further questions.

Best regards,
Bob

Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>

________________________________
From: Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de<mailto:Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de> <Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de<mailto:Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de>>
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2025 3:20 AM
To: sburleig.sb at gmail.com<mailto:sburleig.sb at gmail.com> <sburleig.sb at gmail.com<mailto:sburleig.sb at gmail.com>>
Cc: Robert C Durst <durst at mitre.org<mailto:durst at mitre.org>>; sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org> <sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org>>
Subject: [EXT] Re: [Sis-dtn] DTN input to SIS report to CESG

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message originates outside of MITRE. If you feel this is suspicious, please report it via "Report Suspicious Email" button in Outlook.

Hi Scott,

Thank you for the additional detail on BIBE. Although I like the idea of the apricots sheets, there exists nothing like this in CCSDS for orange books, in the sense that usually these books after some time get retired or elevated to blue/magenta. A possible instrument of revision is given by the periodic 5-year review. Also in light of this I’d prefer to have a more complete book, I.e. also including these new procedures, unless there is an urgent need to have the present version of the book published immediately.

Regards,

Tomaso
Sent from my iPhone

On 14. Jun 2025, at 20:08, sburleig.sb at gmail.com<mailto:sburleig.sb at gmail.com> wrote:

Hi, Tomaso.  My sense is that as of Thursday the DTNWG had tentatively agreed that procedures for bundle segmentation and reassembly should be added to BIBE to address known problems with BP fragmentation/reassembly.  Bob, was that your sense?   If so, should we hold up on the BIBE Orange Book or let it go ahead for now and work on pink sheets (or maybe apricot sheets) for the additional procedures?

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, June 13, 2025 12:53 PM
To: durst at mitre.org<mailto:durst at mitre.org>
Cc: sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: Re: [Sis-dtn] DTN input to SIS report to CESG

Hi Bob,

Thank you for the slides and for great progress!

Just a question for my understanding, we have two orange books projects about network management, one dealing with the architecture (I.e. based on RFC 9675, amp I-D, etc) that Ed and Brian shared a few weeks ago. Then there is a second one about the DTN management information, which is more about ODM/ADM. From your report I understand only the latter was discussed, or am I wrong?
Concerning BIBE I see we are ready for publication, shall I issue a resolution for the CESG poll? In such a case I’d like first to review myself the book.

Regards,

Tomaso
Sent from my iPhone

On 13. Jun 2025, at 21:38, Robert C Durst <durst at mitre.org<mailto:durst at mitre.org>> wrote:

Tomaso,

Slides attached.

All,

Whew!  What a great week!  Thank you to everyone for your hard work and commitment!

Best,
Bob
<d01-CESG Spring 25 DTN.pptx>
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<mailto:dpo at esa.int>).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sis-dtn/attachments/20250616/917487cf/attachment-0001.htm>