[Sls-slp] Fwd: Encapsulation Service

[Greg Kazz]

SLS-SLPers,

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 
http://public.ccsds.org/sites/cwe/rids/completed.aspx

Greg


>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 [204.127.200.83]
>X-Source-Sender: tgannett at us.net
>X-JPL-spam-score: 0.00%
>Original-recipient: rfc822;gkazz at mail.jpl.nasa.gov
>
>Greg:
>
>FYI:  The CESG poll on encapsulation serve has received at least one 
>"Approve with Conditions" vote (from Durst).  The conditions are below.
>
>TG
>
>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 3.3.2.2:  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 [8].  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 [8], 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 4.2.2.1, item g -- this is a poorly worded summary of section 
>4.2.2.8.  Recommend rewording to "Packet Length (0, 1, 2, or 4 octets) -- 
>See Figure 4-2.
>
>Section 4.2.2.3 -- "The value '110'..." does this require a RID against 
>135.0-B-2 (or whatever)?
>
>Section 4.2.2.6 -- "The extended protocol IDs..."  I didn't see this in 
>reference [8].  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.