[Sls-slp] Fwd: Encapsulation Service
greg.j.kazz at jpl.nasa.gov
Fri Mar 24 00:16:44 UTC 2006
This email contains comments from Bob Durst, CCSDS AD for SIS on the
resolution to make the Encapsulation Service a Blue Book. See below.
The Encapsulation Service (version 4 red book) document which completed
agency review can be found at
>Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 18:05:10 -0500
>From: Thomas Gannett <tgannett at us.net>
>Subject: Encapsulation Service
>X-Sender: tgannett at mail.us.net
>To: Greg Kazz <Greg.J.Kazz at jpl.nasa.gov>
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.1
>X-Source-IP: sccrmhc13.comcast.net [188.8.131.52]
>X-Source-Sender: tgannett at us.net
>Original-recipient: rfc822;gkazz at mail.jpl.nasa.gov
>FYI: The CESG poll on encapsulation serve has received at least one
>"Approve with Conditions" vote (from Durst). The conditions are below.
>APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS: 1 (33.33%) (Durst)
>In section 2.2, it is unclear what the conformance requirements
>are. There are two protocols (Space Packet and Encapsulation Packet)
>under a single service interface. Are both required for conformance?
>The document requires a SANA Implications section to address registered
>APIDs and PIDs, and to define procedures to register new APIDs and PIDs.
>The document requires a security implications section.
>Section 184.108.40.206: It is unclear to me whether and how a user of the
>service is expected to know the correct GVCID and PVN to use. Are these
>statically assigned? Assigned on a per-mission basis? What are the
>implications on interoperability?
>Section 4.1, item b) the APID "shall be one of the reserved APIDs"
>defined in reference . Are there guidelines or further restrictions on
>how a particular APID is chosen? Does interoperability depend on this
>choice? In Table 5-2 of reference , there appear to be two degrees of
>"reserved" -- reserved and assigned to a particular protocol, and reserved
>but unassigned. Are any of these fair game? Or was it intended that
>these be drawn from the 2040-2044 range?
>Section 220.127.116.11, item g -- this is a poorly worded summary of section
>18.104.22.168. Recommend rewording to "Packet Length (0, 1, 2, or 4 octets) --
>See Figure 4-2.
>Section 22.214.171.124 -- "The value '110'..." does this require a RID against
>135.0-B-2 (or whatever)?
>Section 126.96.36.199 -- "The extended protocol IDs..." I didn't see this in
>reference . Does it require a RID?
>As a note to the secretariat, I'd suggest that we add an Annex for red
>books that require modifications to other documents that consolidates
>and summarizes those external dependencies.
More information about the SLS-SLP