[Sis-mia] [Cesg-all] Results of CESG Polls closing 11 November 2022

Tue Nov 15 09:57:23 UTC 2022

Hi Tomaso
I thinks the comments from Peter are partially right and we should review the document in this direction, also compared to our others blue books this one is not so formal
Best Regards
Osvaldo

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: SIS-MIA <sis-mia-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> Im Auftrag von Tomaso de Cola via SIS-MIA
Gesendet: Dienstag, 15. November 2022 09:29
An: rodney.grubbs at nasa.gov
Cc: sis-mia at mailman.ccsds.org
Betreff: [Sis-mia] FW: [Cesg-all] Results of CESG Polls closing 11 November 2022

Hi Rodney,

The CESG poll for the DTN-RTP blue book has concluded that a few conditions have to be satisfied before proceeding with publication. They are summarised here below. 
In my opinion, those from Ignacio, Eric, and Jonathan can be easily addressed by fixing the text where need and providing clarifications (this especially is the case for Jonathan point about the test configurations, which in my opinion is out of scope for RTP interoperability tests). Concerning the Peter's comments, they are instead much more substantial and we have to decide to how to target them.

Regards,

Tomaso

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2022-10-006 Approval to publish CCSDS 766.3-B-1, Specification for RTP as Transport for Audio and Video over DTN (Blue Book, Issue 1)

Results of CESG poll beginning 28 October 2022 and ending 11 November 2022:

                 Abstain:  0 (0%)
Approve Unconditionally:  2 (33.33%) (Merri, Cola) Approve with Conditions:  4 (66.67%) (Barkley, Shames, Aguilar Sanchez, Wilmot) Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

     Erik Barkley (Approve with Conditions):  A couple of  conditions:

1)  Minor editorial comment, but I think somewhat important - section 1.2, change "proposed" to "recommended" in "...This document provides an overview and proposed methods for transmission of video over DTN using RTP"
2) Figure 2-4, please correct "RTC 3550" to read "RFC 3550" -- rationale, both RTP and RTCP are defined in RFC 3550.

     Peter Shames (Approve with 
Conditions):   While this document should be very 
useful for that class of missions that requires the support of video over RTP over BP, the document, as written, is rather casual in form and does not conform to the usual CCSDS norms for Utilization Profile or Adaptation Profile style of Blue Books.  It is certainly "Blue-ish" in nature, but needs to be edited and tightened up.  It reads rather more like an agency research paper than a CCSDS Blue Book.

For examples of what I would have expected to see in terms of clear presentation of protocol stacks, PDU & end to end diagrams, etc please review IP Over CCSDS, 702.1-B-1.  Some of the text and figures, such as sec 2.5.3 and fig 2-10, mix protocol and implementation details.  This is not a CCSDS norm.
I recommend that you look at the SCCS-ARD, CCSDS 901.1-M-1, which is, in fact, referenced in the test report, but not here, for some end-to-end and protocol stack examples.  You are, in essence, layering this on top of DTN, but these will give you some protocol stack and deployments examples to follow for clarity.  Also think about what support might be needed in relay nodes, ground stations, and other nodes along the way to support these high rate flows.

There are a number of standards mentioned in Sec
3 that do not appear in the references (SDP, RTCP, SBS/PPS, H264, MPEG, MIME, and BPV7 (to pair with BPSec).  As noted by Wilmot, the ICS is rather abbreviated in nature compared to the details in the text itself.

Finally, I believe that the provisioning of such video services, both in space nodes and in ground systems, deserves creation of the relevant entries in the SANA Service Site and Aperture and Roles registries.  See also recent discussions in the DTN WG about DTN registries.

     Ignacio Aguilar Sanchez (Approve with
Conditions):  1. Simplify section 2 Overview. 
Move and expand, if need be, selected topics in an accompanying Green Book.

2. Introduce managed information as for instance done in Annex F of the Bundle Protocol BB.

     Jonathan Wilmot (Approve with
Conditions):  1) Some optional features do not have documented interoperability tests per CCSDS
A02.1-Y-4 "in cases in which one or more options or features have not been demonstrated in at least two interoperable prototypes or implementations, the specification may advance to the CCSDS Recommended Standard level only if those options or features are removed;"

2)  Tests should include a range of delays, disruption durations, and out-of-order packets to simulate space use cases.  If the standard only applies to near earth scenarios,  then that should be stated.

Total Respondents:  6

All Areas responded to this question.

SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Approved with Conditions
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            Generate 
CMC poll after conditions have been addressed

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

-----Original Message-----
From: CESG-All <cesg-all-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> On Behalf Of CCSDS Secretariat via CESG-All
Sent: Montag, 14. November 2022 17:40
To: cesg-all at mailman.ccsds.org
Subject: [Cesg-all] Results of CESG Polls closing 11 November 2022

_______________________________________________
SIS-MIA mailing list
SIS-MIA at mailman.ccsds.org
https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sis-mia