[Sis-mia] AW: Update and feedback needed please!

Wed Mar 18 13:01:57 UTC 2015

Hi Rodney
I would drop the A10.1
My experience with the security group and the voice WG was like not help at all.
Best Regards
Osvaldo

Von: sis-mia-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org [mailto:sis-mia-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] Im Auftrag von Grubbs, Rodney P. (MSFC-EO50)
Gesendet: Dienstag, 17. März 2015 16:35
An: sis-mia at mailman.ccsds.org
Betreff: [Sis-mia] Update and feedback needed please!

My apologies for the absence of communications the past weeks.  Here's a quick update and a question to the group at the end.

*  We will NOT be meeting at the Pasadena Workshop. As you'll see below, we're very close to publishing our Blue Book and had no agenda items for this round of technical meetings.

*  The results of the CESG polling of our Blue Book exposed two issues that we didn't clearly address in our Red Book.  One had to do with JPEG2000 and the other DTN.  I've included the polling comments below for your reference.  I've addressed the comments in the updated draft attached.

*  After another review with our Area Director Keith Scott, and a dialog with Tom Gannet, we've discovered an issue where the PICS references non-normative Security language in the Annex.  An excerpt from Keith's email explains the problem:

 " *IF* you really want security to be a mandatory part of the document, you’ll need to pull the relevant requirements up into a normative section and then reference that from the PICS.  That might be as simple as saying something like:

3.9 Security
3.9.1  Users who desire security services (integrity, confidentiality, authentication) must implement them according to the mechanisms and procedures described in ‘Secure JPEG 2000’.

Alternately, you could just drop A10.1"

So, the question to the group is, do we want to move security into the normative section as Keith suggests, or drop A10 from the PICS and leave the document as it is otherwise?  Please take some time to look over the draft and Keith's suggestion and give me some feedback.
Thanks!
-rg

********
COMMENTS FROM POLLING:
CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2014-12-004 Approval to publish CCSDS 766.1-B-1, Digital Motion Imagery (Blue Book, Issue 1) Results of CESG poll beginning 30 December 2014 and ending 16 January 2015:

                 Abstain:  0 (0%)
 Approve Unconditionally:  2 (40%) (Peccia, Barkley)
 Approve with Conditions:  2 (40%) (Shames, Calzolari)
 Disapprove with Comment:  1 (20%) (Scott)

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions): The DMI Blue Book (766x1b1) and the Test report
(760.1-Y-11) are inconsistent and apparently not completely compliant with CCSDS Blue Book criteria. The particular issue is with JPEG 2000 and also with DTN.

The BB includes sections on JPEG 2000 that are stated as requirements. Refer to the marked up copy attached, particularly Sec 3.4.4.2 and 3.6.1.2. It also includes a DTN section 3.6.3.

In the YB test report the text explicitly states " JPEG2000 video compression for real-time transmission has not been tested". There is a reference in Sec 4.2 Summary of Tests, in the table, suggesting that JPEG2000 was tested, but this appears to be an error since there is an earlier statement "no implementations have been made of JPEG2000 in spacecraft and none are currently planned".

Similarly there does not appear to have been any testing done of DTN for transmission of video streams.

Conditions:

1) Remove all normative references to JPEG 2000 from the BB
2) Remove the normative reference to DTN from the BB
3) Align the BB and YB to reflect what has actually been tested

Alternatively:

1) Do the testing of JPEG 2000 and/or DTN
2) Align the BB and YB to reflect what has actually been tested

Erik Barkley (Approve Unconditionally): Comments (but not conditions): The test report offered description of various equipment configurations/connections as the results. It seems that if verification of the proposed referenced industry standards for transmission of motion imagery were being tested some sort of pre-planned video sequence would have been tested with verification of video as recorded locally and as received remotely would have been good, with some assessment as to color values, aspect ratios, frame rates, etc being preserved, with respect or test images etc. Perhaps at least a note indicating the design of the test(s) and expected results needs to be added?

Gian Paolo Calzolari (Approve with Conditions):
Clarify the normative part about transmission over CFDP or over DTN.
Condition limited as SIS AD has already disapproved this publication.

Keith Scott (Disapprove with Comment): Motion JPEG 2000 and DTN were supposed to be non-normative, but they seem to be normative in this version. I'm pretty sure this is going to require some rework and another agency review.

Total Respondents: 5
No response was received from the following Area(s):

SOIS

SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Disapproved
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            Generate
new CESG poll after conditions have been addressed
*****
Rodney Grubbs
NASA Imagery Experts Program Manager
MSFC EO50
256-544-4582
256-603-3270 (cellular, text message capable)
Follow me on Twitter @rod4dtv
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sis-mia/attachments/20150318/03da3c67/attachment.html>