From greg.j.kazz at jpl.nasa.gov Tue Aug 18 23:45:43 2015 From: greg.j.kazz at jpl.nasa.gov (Kazz, Greg J (312B)) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 23:45:43 +0000 Subject: [Sls-slp] Re: Results of CESG Polls closing 14 August 2015 In-Reply-To: <4a15a191-66cf-4595-ba39-e236e8c0c069@AIAASWMLEXCH010.hq.ad.aiaa.org> References: <4a15a191-66cf-4595-ba39-e236e8c0c069@AIAASWMLEXCH010.hq.ad.aiaa.org> Message-ID: Dear Peter and Tomaso, Attached please find 2 files. The first is an updated Word document that contains my ³purple lines² changes to the Space Data Link Protocols-Summary of Concept and Rationale CCSDS 130.2-G-2.1 with dispositions to your ³RIDs². Thank you very much for all of your thoughtful comments. It has made the Green book much more robust. The second pdf file contains answers to Peter¹s questions within the comment bubbles using the reply feature. Regards, Greg On 8/17/15, 1:27 PM, "Thomas Gannett" wrote: >Greg: > >The CESG approval polls for the SLS link layer updates concluded with >conditional approval (conditions are stated below). Approval >conditions for the specifications themselves are minor; Peter's >conditions for approval of the Green Book appear to be somewhat more >involved (his markup of the PDF file is attached). > >I suggest you respond directly to Peter and Tomaso (don't worry about >the issue-number conditions) with your proposed dispositions, CCing >me and cesg at mailman.ccsds.org. When agreement on the dispositions >exists, I'll update the files per the dispositions. > >Tom > > > >At 03:37 PM 8/17/2015, CCSDS Secretariat wrote: > >>CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2015-07-002 Approval to publish CCSDS >>132.0-B-2, TM Space Data Link Protocol (Blue Book, Issue 2) >>Results of CESG poll beginning 31 July 2015 and ending 14 August 2015: >> >> Abstain: 0 (0%) >> Approve Unconditionally: 7 (77.78%) (Merri, Behal, Scott, >> Calzolari, Moury, Suess, Barton) >> Approve with Conditions: 2 (22.22%) (Shames, Cola) >> Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%) >> >>CONDITIONS/COMMENTS: >> >>Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions): This is approved with one >>condition: Add references to the SCCS-ADD (CCSDS 901.0-G) and >>SCCS-ARD (901.1-M) to section 2.1.1 Architecture where the OSCP is >>also included. >> >>Also, note that the term "payload", which is used (inconsistently) >>in the SDLS document (CCSDS 355x0b) does not appear anywhere in this >>document. >> >>However, Figure 6-1 does make the relationships among User Data, >>Transfer Frame Data Field, and Security Header and Trailer quite >>clear without using this term. >> >>Keith Scott (Approve Unconditionally): In principle I concur with >>Tomaso that the reference to the SDLS book should be updated to >>reflect the published version of the SDLS Blue Book (provided that >>the SDLS Blue Book is approved in the same round of polling as TM). >>This assumes that there are no substantive differences between the >>draft SDLS book referenced here and the final SDLS book, which I >>believe is the case; however, a comment on this by the Security WG >>might be useful. >> >>--keith >> >>Tomaso de Cola (Approve with Conditions): I would suggest to update >>reference (normative) 10, so that issue 1, instead of issue 0 >>appears. Obviously, the "code" of the referenced CCSDS book should >>be updated accordingly as well. >> >> >>Total Respondents: 9 >>No response was received from the following Area(s): >> >>CSS >> >>SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with Conditions >>PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate CMC poll after >>conditions have been addressed >> >>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * >> >>CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2015-07-003 Approval to publish CCSDS >>232.0-B-3, TC Space Data Link Protocol (Blue Book, Issue 3) >>Results of CESG poll beginning 31 July 2015 and ending 14 August 2015: >> >> Abstain: 0 (0%) >> Approve Unconditionally: 7 (77.78%) (Merri, Behal, Scott, >> Calzolari, Moury, Suess, Barton) >> Approve with Conditions: 2 (22.22%) (Shames, Cola) >> Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%) >> >>CONDITIONS/COMMENTS: >> >>Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions): This is approved with one >>condition: Add references to the SCCS-ADD (CCSDS 901.0-G) and >>SCCS-ARD (901.1-M) to section 2.1.1 Architecture where the OSCP is >>also included. >> >>Also, note that the term "payload", which is used (inconsistently) >>in the SDLS document (CCSDS 355x0b) does not appear anywhere in this >>document. >> >>However, Figure 6-1 does make the relationships among User Data, >>Transfer Frame Data Field, and Security Header and Trailer quite >>clear without using this term. >> >>Keith Scott (Approve Unconditionally): In principle I concur with >>Tomaso that the reference to the SDLS book should be updated to >>reflect the published version of the SDLS Blue Book (provided that >>the SDLS Blue Book is approved in the same round of polling as TC). >>This assumes that there are no substantive differences between the >>draft SDLS book referenced here and the final SDLS book, which I >>believe is the case; however, a comment on this by the Security WG >>might be useful. >> >>--keith >> >>Tomaso de Cola (Approve with Conditions): As stated for TM book, the >>reference to SDLS blue book should be with issue 1, instead of 0. >> >> >>Total Respondents: 9 >>No response was received from the following Area(s): >> >>CSS >> >>SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with Conditions >>PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate CMC poll after >>conditions have been addressed >> >>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * >> >>CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2015-07-004 Approval to publish CCSDS >>732.0-B-3, AOS Space Data Link Protocol (Blue Book, Issue 3) >>Results of CESG poll beginning 31 July 2015 and ending 14 August 2015: >> >> Abstain: 0 (0%) >> Approve Unconditionally: 8 (88.89%) (Merri, Behal, Scott, Cola, >> Calzolari, Moury, Suess, Barton) >> Approve with Conditions: 1 (11.11%) (Shames) >> Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%) >> >>CONDITIONS/COMMENTS: >> >>Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions): This is approved with one >>condition: Add references to the SCCS-ADD (CCSDS 901.0-G) and >>SCCS-ARD (901.1-M) to section 2.1.1 Architecture where the OSCP is >>also included. >> >>Also, note that the term "payload", which is used (inconsistently) >>in the SDLS document (CCSDS 355x0b) does not appear anywhere in this >>document. >> >>However, Figure 6-1 does make the relationships among User Data, >>Transfer Frame Data Field, and Security Header and Trailer quite >>clear without using this term. >> >>Keith Scott (Approve Unconditionally): In principle I concur with >>Tomaso that the reference to the SDLS book should be updated to >>reflect the published version of the SDLS Blue Book (provided that >>the SDLS Blue Book is approved in the same round of polling as AOS). >>This assumes that there are no substantive differences between the >>draft SDLS book referenced here and the final SDLS book, which I >>believe is the case; however, a comment on this by the Security WG >>might be useful. >> >>--keith >> >>Tomaso de Cola (Approve Unconditionally): As stated for the TM book, >>the reference to SDLS blue book should be with issue 1, instead of 0. >> >> >>Total Respondents: 9 >>No response was received from the following Area(s): >> >>CSS >> >>SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with Conditions >>PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate CMC poll after >>conditions have been addressed >> >>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * >> >>CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2015-07-005 Approval to publish CCSDS >>130.2-G-3, Space Data Link Protocols-Summary of Concept and >>Rationale (Green Book, Issue 3) >>Results of CESG poll beginning 31 July 2015 and ending 14 August 2015: >> >> Abstain: 0 (0%) >> Approve Unconditionally: 6 (75%) (Merri, Behal, Calzolari, Moury, >> Suess, Barton) >> Approve with Conditions: 2 (25%) (Shames, Cola) >> Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%) >> >>CONDITIONS/COMMENTS: >> >>Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions): This document still needs a >>significant amount of work. Here are the major issues: >> >>1) It talks about the role of Service Providers in a number of >>places, but the SLE interfaces, and the role of space data service >>providers, is essentially ignored. The only SLE service that is >>included is FSP, CLTU, RAF and RCF are all left out, a major omission. >>2) Prox-1 is left out, but spacecraft to spacecraft links are >>mentioned in several places. This tends to suggest that these links >>should be serviced by TC & TM, which is not typically the best approach. >>3) AOS is described only in the context of audio and video services, >>its use for high rate data links is not even mentioned. >>4) RASDS diagrams are used throughout, but there is no reference >>made to RASDS (CCSDS 311.0-M). References should also be made to the >>SCCS-ADD (CCSDS 901.0-G) and the SCCS-ARD (CCSDS 901.1-M). These >>documents provide the best context for understanding the >>relationships among all of these SLS protocols and the CSS services. >>5) The treatment of COP, FOP, FARM is a little uneven and no mention >>is made of LTP as a means to assure reliable delivery of link layer data. >>6) The only "network" protocols that are mentioned are SPP (and a >>little about Encap). There is not mention of other CCSDS upper layer >>protocols like LTP, CFDP, AMS, IP or DTN. These application layer >>and network layer protocols are a part of CCSDS and their >>relationship to the link layer should be made clear. >> >>Tomaso de Cola (Approve with Conditions): Three comments: >>1) reference to SDLS (reference [21]) should be updated to issue 1. >>2) In section 2 it is stated that proximity-1 is out of the scope of >>the book, because a separated green book is already available about >>proximity-1. I'd place a similar statement also in section 1.2, >>where actually the scope of the book is established. >>3) In section 5.2, it is mentioned that proximity-1 does not have >>specific security requirements. Since the book does not address >>Proximity-1, I would drop this consideration. >> >> >>Total Respondents: 8 >>No response was received from the following Area(s): >> >>CSS >> >>SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with Conditions >>PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate CMC poll after >>conditions have been addressed >> > >Thomas Gannett >+1 443 472 0805 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 130x2g21_CESG_Approval-SEAv1_Kazz_comments.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 697463 bytes Desc: 130x2g21_CESG_Approval-SEAv1_Kazz_comments.pdf URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 130x2g21_CESG_Approval_GJK.doc Type: application/msword Size: 307712 bytes Desc: 130x2g21_CESG_Approval_GJK.doc URL: From peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov Wed Aug 19 18:07:50 2015 From: peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov (Shames, Peter M (312B)) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 18:07:50 +0000 Subject: [Sls-slp] Re: Results of CESG Polls closing 14 August 2015 In-Reply-To: References: <4a15a191-66cf-4595-ba39-e236e8c0c069@AIAASWMLEXCH010.hq.ad.aiaa.org> Message-ID: Hi Greg, I have reviewed your notes and the edited version of the document that you provided. In general I am in agreement with all of the changes you have proposed and noted in the PDF. In reading over the Word version to see the actual changes I found some minor points that I thought needed further clarification. As a result I have used Track Changes to provide some further suggestions for clarification. If you and the WG accept these I think we have closure. Best regards, Peter From: Greg Kazz > Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 4:45 PM To: Peter Shames >, "Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de" > Cc: Gian Paolo Calzolari >, Tom Gannett >, "sls-slp at mailman.ccsds.org" >, CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec > Subject: Re: Results of CESG Polls closing 14 August 2015 Dear Peter and Tomaso, Attached please find 2 files. The first is an updated Word document that contains my ³purple lines² changes to the Space Data Link Protocols-Summary of Concept and Rationale CCSDS 130.2-G-2.1 with dispositions to your ³RIDs². Thank you very much for all of your thoughtful comments. It has made the Green book much more robust. The second pdf file contains answers to Peter¹s questions within the comment bubbles using the reply feature. Regards, Greg On 8/17/15, 1:27 PM, "Thomas Gannett" > wrote: Greg: The CESG approval polls for the SLS link layer updates concluded with conditional approval (conditions are stated below). Approval conditions for the specifications themselves are minor; Peter's conditions for approval of the Green Book appear to be somewhat more involved (his markup of the PDF file is attached). I suggest you respond directly to Peter and Tomaso (don't worry about the issue-number conditions) with your proposed dispositions, CCing me and cesg at mailman.ccsds.org. When agreement on the dispositions exists, I'll update the files per the dispositions. Tom At 03:37 PM 8/17/2015, CCSDS Secretariat wrote: CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2015-07-002 Approval to publish CCSDS 132.0-B-2, TM Space Data Link Protocol (Blue Book, Issue 2) Results of CESG poll beginning 31 July 2015 and ending 14 August 2015: Abstain: 0 (0%) Approve Unconditionally: 7 (77.78%) (Merri, Behal, Scott, Calzolari, Moury, Suess, Barton) Approve with Conditions: 2 (22.22%) (Shames, Cola) Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%) CONDITIONS/COMMENTS: Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions): This is approved with one condition: Add references to the SCCS-ADD (CCSDS 901.0-G) and SCCS-ARD (901.1-M) to section 2.1.1 Architecture where the OSCP is also included. Also, note that the term "payload", which is used (inconsistently) in the SDLS document (CCSDS 355x0b) does not appear anywhere in this document. However, Figure 6-1 does make the relationships among User Data, Transfer Frame Data Field, and Security Header and Trailer quite clear without using this term. Keith Scott (Approve Unconditionally): In principle I concur with Tomaso that the reference to the SDLS book should be updated to reflect the published version of the SDLS Blue Book (provided that the SDLS Blue Book is approved in the same round of polling as TM). This assumes that there are no substantive differences between the draft SDLS book referenced here and the final SDLS book, which I believe is the case; however, a comment on this by the Security WG might be useful. --keith Tomaso de Cola (Approve with Conditions): I would suggest to update reference (normative) 10, so that issue 1, instead of issue 0 appears. Obviously, the "code" of the referenced CCSDS book should be updated accordingly as well. Total Respondents: 9 No response was received from the following Area(s): CSS SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with Conditions PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate CMC poll after conditions have been addressed * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2015-07-003 Approval to publish CCSDS 232.0-B-3, TC Space Data Link Protocol (Blue Book, Issue 3) Results of CESG poll beginning 31 July 2015 and ending 14 August 2015: Abstain: 0 (0%) Approve Unconditionally: 7 (77.78%) (Merri, Behal, Scott, Calzolari, Moury, Suess, Barton) Approve with Conditions: 2 (22.22%) (Shames, Cola) Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%) CONDITIONS/COMMENTS: Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions): This is approved with one condition: Add references to the SCCS-ADD (CCSDS 901.0-G) and SCCS-ARD (901.1-M) to section 2.1.1 Architecture where the OSCP is also included. Also, note that the term "payload", which is used (inconsistently) in the SDLS document (CCSDS 355x0b) does not appear anywhere in this document. However, Figure 6-1 does make the relationships among User Data, Transfer Frame Data Field, and Security Header and Trailer quite clear without using this term. Keith Scott (Approve Unconditionally): In principle I concur with Tomaso that the reference to the SDLS book should be updated to reflect the published version of the SDLS Blue Book (provided that the SDLS Blue Book is approved in the same round of polling as TC). This assumes that there are no substantive differences between the draft SDLS book referenced here and the final SDLS book, which I believe is the case; however, a comment on this by the Security WG might be useful. --keith Tomaso de Cola (Approve with Conditions): As stated for TM book, the reference to SDLS blue book should be with issue 1, instead of 0. Total Respondents: 9 No response was received from the following Area(s): CSS SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with Conditions PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate CMC poll after conditions have been addressed * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2015-07-004 Approval to publish CCSDS 732.0-B-3, AOS Space Data Link Protocol (Blue Book, Issue 3) Results of CESG poll beginning 31 July 2015 and ending 14 August 2015: Abstain: 0 (0%) Approve Unconditionally: 8 (88.89%) (Merri, Behal, Scott, Cola, Calzolari, Moury, Suess, Barton) Approve with Conditions: 1 (11.11%) (Shames) Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%) CONDITIONS/COMMENTS: Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions): This is approved with one condition: Add references to the SCCS-ADD (CCSDS 901.0-G) and SCCS-ARD (901.1-M) to section 2.1.1 Architecture where the OSCP is also included. Also, note that the term "payload", which is used (inconsistently) in the SDLS document (CCSDS 355x0b) does not appear anywhere in this document. However, Figure 6-1 does make the relationships among User Data, Transfer Frame Data Field, and Security Header and Trailer quite clear without using this term. Keith Scott (Approve Unconditionally): In principle I concur with Tomaso that the reference to the SDLS book should be updated to reflect the published version of the SDLS Blue Book (provided that the SDLS Blue Book is approved in the same round of polling as AOS). This assumes that there are no substantive differences between the draft SDLS book referenced here and the final SDLS book, which I believe is the case; however, a comment on this by the Security WG might be useful. --keith Tomaso de Cola (Approve Unconditionally): As stated for the TM book, the reference to SDLS blue book should be with issue 1, instead of 0. Total Respondents: 9 No response was received from the following Area(s): CSS SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with Conditions PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate CMC poll after conditions have been addressed * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2015-07-005 Approval to publish CCSDS 130.2-G-3, Space Data Link Protocols-Summary of Concept and Rationale (Green Book, Issue 3) Results of CESG poll beginning 31 July 2015 and ending 14 August 2015: Abstain: 0 (0%) Approve Unconditionally: 6 (75%) (Merri, Behal, Calzolari, Moury, Suess, Barton) Approve with Conditions: 2 (25%) (Shames, Cola) Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%) CONDITIONS/COMMENTS: Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions): This document still needs a significant amount of work. Here are the major issues: 1) It talks about the role of Service Providers in a number of places, but the SLE interfaces, and the role of space data service providers, is essentially ignored. The only SLE service that is included is FSP, CLTU, RAF and RCF are all left out, a major omission. 2) Prox-1 is left out, but spacecraft to spacecraft links are mentioned in several places. This tends to suggest that these links should be serviced by TC & TM, which is not typically the best approach. 3) AOS is described only in the context of audio and video services, its use for high rate data links is not even mentioned. 4) RASDS diagrams are used throughout, but there is no reference made to RASDS (CCSDS 311.0-M). References should also be made to the SCCS-ADD (CCSDS 901.0-G) and the SCCS-ARD (CCSDS 901.1-M). These documents provide the best context for understanding the relationships among all of these SLS protocols and the CSS services. 5) The treatment of COP, FOP, FARM is a little uneven and no mention is made of LTP as a means to assure reliable delivery of link layer data. 6) The only "network" protocols that are mentioned are SPP (and a little about Encap). There is not mention of other CCSDS upper layer protocols like LTP, CFDP, AMS, IP or DTN. These application layer and network layer protocols are a part of CCSDS and their relationship to the link layer should be made clear. Tomaso de Cola (Approve with Conditions): Three comments: 1) reference to SDLS (reference [21]) should be updated to issue 1. 2) In section 2 it is stated that proximity-1 is out of the scope of the book, because a separated green book is already available about proximity-1. I'd place a similar statement also in section 1.2, where actually the scope of the book is established. 3) In section 5.2, it is mentioned that proximity-1 does not have specific security requirements. Since the book does not address Proximity-1, I would drop this consideration. Total Respondents: 8 No response was received from the following Area(s): CSS SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with Conditions PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate CMC poll after conditions have been addressed Thomas Gannett +1 443 472 0805 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 130x2g21_CESG_Approval_GJK-SEA.doc Type: application/msword Size: 460288 bytes Desc: 130x2g21_CESG_Approval_GJK-SEA.doc URL: From greg.j.kazz at jpl.nasa.gov Wed Aug 19 18:24:45 2015 From: greg.j.kazz at jpl.nasa.gov (Kazz, Greg J (312B)) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 18:24:45 +0000 Subject: [Sls-slp] FW: Results of CESG Polls closing 14 August 2015 In-Reply-To: References: <4a15a191-66cf-4595-ba39-e236e8c0c069@AIAASWMLEXCH010.hq.ad.aiaa.org> Message-ID: Dear SLP WG, Attached please find the updated CCSDS 130.2-G-2.1 Space Data Link Protocols – Summary of Concept and Rationale Green Book. I concur with Peter Shames’ comments which are identified in blue in the attachment. Please let me know if you have any concerns or comments with this update by Sept. 2. Otherwise, I will assume you approve of this update. I would like to move forward with it so that the secretariat can process it along with the other approved SLP changes to TM, TC, AOS space data link blue books. Best regards, Greg From: , "Peter M (312B)" > Date: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 11:07 AM To: "Kazz, Greg J (313B)" >, "Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de" > Cc: "Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int" >, Thomas Gannett >, "sls-slp at mailman.ccsds.org" >, "cesg at mailman.ccsds.org" > Subject: Re: Results of CESG Polls closing 14 August 2015 Hi Greg, I have reviewed your notes and the edited version of the document that you provided. In general I am in agreement with all of the changes you have proposed and noted in the PDF. In reading over the Word version to see the actual changes I found some minor points that I thought needed further clarification. As a result I have used Track Changes to provide some further suggestions for clarification. If you and the WG accept these I think we have closure. Best regards, Peter From: Greg Kazz > Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 4:45 PM To: Peter Shames >, "Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de" > Cc: Gian Paolo Calzolari >, Tom Gannett >, "sls-slp at mailman.ccsds.org" >, CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec > Subject: Re: Results of CESG Polls closing 14 August 2015 Dear Peter and Tomaso, Attached please find 2 files. The first is an updated Word document that contains my ³purple lines² changes to the Space Data Link Protocols-Summary of Concept and Rationale CCSDS 130.2-G-2.1 with dispositions to your ³RIDs². Thank you very much for all of your thoughtful comments. It has made the Green book much more robust. The second pdf file contains answers to Peter¹s questions within the comment bubbles using the reply feature. Regards, Greg On 8/17/15, 1:27 PM, "Thomas Gannett" > wrote: Greg: The CESG approval polls for the SLS link layer updates concluded with conditional approval (conditions are stated below). Approval conditions for the specifications themselves are minor; Peter's conditions for approval of the Green Book appear to be somewhat more involved (his markup of the PDF file is attached). I suggest you respond directly to Peter and Tomaso (don't worry about the issue-number conditions) with your proposed dispositions, CCing me and cesg at mailman.ccsds.org. When agreement on the dispositions exists, I'll update the files per the dispositions. Tom At 03:37 PM 8/17/2015, CCSDS Secretariat wrote: CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2015-07-002 Approval to publish CCSDS 132.0-B-2, TM Space Data Link Protocol (Blue Book, Issue 2) Results of CESG poll beginning 31 July 2015 and ending 14 August 2015: Abstain: 0 (0%) Approve Unconditionally: 7 (77.78%) (Merri, Behal, Scott, Calzolari, Moury, Suess, Barton) Approve with Conditions: 2 (22.22%) (Shames, Cola) Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%) CONDITIONS/COMMENTS: Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions): This is approved with one condition: Add references to the SCCS-ADD (CCSDS 901.0-G) and SCCS-ARD (901.1-M) to section 2.1.1 Architecture where the OSCP is also included. Also, note that the term "payload", which is used (inconsistently) in the SDLS document (CCSDS 355x0b) does not appear anywhere in this document. However, Figure 6-1 does make the relationships among User Data, Transfer Frame Data Field, and Security Header and Trailer quite clear without using this term. Keith Scott (Approve Unconditionally): In principle I concur with Tomaso that the reference to the SDLS book should be updated to reflect the published version of the SDLS Blue Book (provided that the SDLS Blue Book is approved in the same round of polling as TM). This assumes that there are no substantive differences between the draft SDLS book referenced here and the final SDLS book, which I believe is the case; however, a comment on this by the Security WG might be useful. --keith Tomaso de Cola (Approve with Conditions): I would suggest to update reference (normative) 10, so that issue 1, instead of issue 0 appears. Obviously, the "code" of the referenced CCSDS book should be updated accordingly as well. Total Respondents: 9 No response was received from the following Area(s): CSS SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with Conditions PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate CMC poll after conditions have been addressed * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2015-07-003 Approval to publish CCSDS 232.0-B-3, TC Space Data Link Protocol (Blue Book, Issue 3) Results of CESG poll beginning 31 July 2015 and ending 14 August 2015: Abstain: 0 (0%) Approve Unconditionally: 7 (77.78%) (Merri, Behal, Scott, Calzolari, Moury, Suess, Barton) Approve with Conditions: 2 (22.22%) (Shames, Cola) Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%) CONDITIONS/COMMENTS: Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions): This is approved with one condition: Add references to the SCCS-ADD (CCSDS 901.0-G) and SCCS-ARD (901.1-M) to section 2.1.1 Architecture where the OSCP is also included. Also, note that the term "payload", which is used (inconsistently) in the SDLS document (CCSDS 355x0b) does not appear anywhere in this document. However, Figure 6-1 does make the relationships among User Data, Transfer Frame Data Field, and Security Header and Trailer quite clear without using this term. Keith Scott (Approve Unconditionally): In principle I concur with Tomaso that the reference to the SDLS book should be updated to reflect the published version of the SDLS Blue Book (provided that the SDLS Blue Book is approved in the same round of polling as TC). This assumes that there are no substantive differences between the draft SDLS book referenced here and the final SDLS book, which I believe is the case; however, a comment on this by the Security WG might be useful. --keith Tomaso de Cola (Approve with Conditions): As stated for TM book, the reference to SDLS blue book should be with issue 1, instead of 0. Total Respondents: 9 No response was received from the following Area(s): CSS SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with Conditions PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate CMC poll after conditions have been addressed * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2015-07-004 Approval to publish CCSDS 732.0-B-3, AOS Space Data Link Protocol (Blue Book, Issue 3) Results of CESG poll beginning 31 July 2015 and ending 14 August 2015: Abstain: 0 (0%) Approve Unconditionally: 8 (88.89%) (Merri, Behal, Scott, Cola, Calzolari, Moury, Suess, Barton) Approve with Conditions: 1 (11.11%) (Shames) Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%) CONDITIONS/COMMENTS: Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions): This is approved with one condition: Add references to the SCCS-ADD (CCSDS 901.0-G) and SCCS-ARD (901.1-M) to section 2.1.1 Architecture where the OSCP is also included. Also, note that the term "payload", which is used (inconsistently) in the SDLS document (CCSDS 355x0b) does not appear anywhere in this document. However, Figure 6-1 does make the relationships among User Data, Transfer Frame Data Field, and Security Header and Trailer quite clear without using this term. Keith Scott (Approve Unconditionally): In principle I concur with Tomaso that the reference to the SDLS book should be updated to reflect the published version of the SDLS Blue Book (provided that the SDLS Blue Book is approved in the same round of polling as AOS). This assumes that there are no substantive differences between the draft SDLS book referenced here and the final SDLS book, which I believe is the case; however, a comment on this by the Security WG might be useful. --keith Tomaso de Cola (Approve Unconditionally): As stated for the TM book, the reference to SDLS blue book should be with issue 1, instead of 0. Total Respondents: 9 No response was received from the following Area(s): CSS SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with Conditions PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate CMC poll after conditions have been addressed * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2015-07-005 Approval to publish CCSDS 130.2-G-3, Space Data Link Protocols-Summary of Concept and Rationale (Green Book, Issue 3) Results of CESG poll beginning 31 July 2015 and ending 14 August 2015: Abstain: 0 (0%) Approve Unconditionally: 6 (75%) (Merri, Behal, Calzolari, Moury, Suess, Barton) Approve with Conditions: 2 (25%) (Shames, Cola) Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%) CONDITIONS/COMMENTS: Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions): This document still needs a significant amount of work. Here are the major issues: 1) It talks about the role of Service Providers in a number of places, but the SLE interfaces, and the role of space data service providers, is essentially ignored. The only SLE service that is included is FSP, CLTU, RAF and RCF are all left out, a major omission. 2) Prox-1 is left out, but spacecraft to spacecraft links are mentioned in several places. This tends to suggest that these links should be serviced by TC & TM, which is not typically the best approach. 3) AOS is described only in the context of audio and video services, its use for high rate data links is not even mentioned. 4) RASDS diagrams are used throughout, but there is no reference made to RASDS (CCSDS 311.0-M). References should also be made to the SCCS-ADD (CCSDS 901.0-G) and the SCCS-ARD (CCSDS 901.1-M). These documents provide the best context for understanding the relationships among all of these SLS protocols and the CSS services. 5) The treatment of COP, FOP, FARM is a little uneven and no mention is made of LTP as a means to assure reliable delivery of link layer data. 6) The only "network" protocols that are mentioned are SPP (and a little about Encap). There is not mention of other CCSDS upper layer protocols like LTP, CFDP, AMS, IP or DTN. These application layer and network layer protocols are a part of CCSDS and their relationship to the link layer should be made clear. Tomaso de Cola (Approve with Conditions): Three comments: 1) reference to SDLS (reference [21]) should be updated to issue 1. 2) In section 2 it is stated that proximity-1 is out of the scope of the book, because a separated green book is already available about proximity-1. I'd place a similar statement also in section 1.2, where actually the scope of the book is established. 3) In section 5.2, it is mentioned that proximity-1 does not have specific security requirements. Since the book does not address Proximity-1, I would drop this consideration. Total Respondents: 8 No response was received from the following Area(s): CSS SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with Conditions PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate CMC poll after conditions have been addressed Thomas Gannett +1 443 472 0805 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 130x2g21_CESG_Approval_GJK-SEA.doc Type: application/msword Size: 460288 bytes Desc: 130x2g21_CESG_Approval_GJK-SEA.doc URL: From Gilles.Moury at cnes.fr Thu Aug 20 07:53:35 2015 From: Gilles.Moury at cnes.fr (Moury Gilles) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 07:53:35 +0000 Subject: [Sls-slp] RE: Results of CESG Polls closing 14 August 2015 In-Reply-To: References: <4a15a191-66cf-4595-ba39-e236e8c0c069@AIAASWMLEXCH010.hq.ad.aiaa.org> Message-ID: <442F062EBF46F247A96B8A50EF3EB6F4170491DB@TW-MBX-P04.cnesnet.ad.cnes.fr> Dear Greg, I agree with the proposed modifications. I have just corrected 2 typos in the attached file (p1-1, 4-5) Best regards, Gilles Gilles MOURY CNES Toulouse De : Kazz, Greg J (312B) [mailto:greg.j.kazz at jpl.nasa.gov] Envoyé : mercredi 19 août 2015 20:25 À : sls-slp at mailman.ccsds.org Cc : Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int; Moury Gilles Objet : FW: Results of CESG Polls closing 14 August 2015 Dear SLP WG, Attached please find the updated CCSDS 130.2-G-2.1 Space Data Link Protocols - Summary of Concept and Rationale Green Book. I concur with Peter Shames' comments which are identified in blue in the attachment. Please let me know if you have any concerns or comments with this update by Sept. 2. Otherwise, I will assume you approve of this update. I would like to move forward with it so that the secretariat can process it along with the other approved SLP changes to TM, TC, AOS space data link blue books. Best regards, Greg From: , "Peter M (312B)" > Date: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 11:07 AM To: "Kazz, Greg J (313B)" >, "Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de" > Cc: "Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int" >, Thomas Gannett >, "sls-slp at mailman.ccsds.org" >, "cesg at mailman.ccsds.org" > Subject: Re: Results of CESG Polls closing 14 August 2015 Hi Greg, I have reviewed your notes and the edited version of the document that you provided. In general I am in agreement with all of the changes you have proposed and noted in the PDF. In reading over the Word version to see the actual changes I found some minor points that I thought needed further clarification. As a result I have used Track Changes to provide some further suggestions for clarification. If you and the WG accept these I think we have closure. Best regards, Peter From: Greg Kazz > Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 4:45 PM To: Peter Shames >, "Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de" > Cc: Gian Paolo Calzolari >, Tom Gannett >, "sls-slp at mailman.ccsds.org" >, CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec > Subject: Re: Results of CESG Polls closing 14 August 2015 Dear Peter and Tomaso, Attached please find 2 files. The first is an updated Word document that contains my ³purple lines² changes to the Space Data Link Protocols-Summary of Concept and Rationale CCSDS 130.2-G-2.1 with dispositions to your ³RIDs². Thank you very much for all of your thoughtful comments. It has made the Green book much more robust. The second pdf file contains answers to Peter¹s questions within the comment bubbles using the reply feature. Regards, Greg On 8/17/15, 1:27 PM, "Thomas Gannett" > wrote: Greg: The CESG approval polls for the SLS link layer updates concluded with conditional approval (conditions are stated below). Approval conditions for the specifications themselves are minor; Peter's conditions for approval of the Green Book appear to be somewhat more involved (his markup of the PDF file is attached). I suggest you respond directly to Peter and Tomaso (don't worry about the issue-number conditions) with your proposed dispositions, CCing me and cesg at mailman.ccsds.org. When agreement on the dispositions exists, I'll update the files per the dispositions. Tom At 03:37 PM 8/17/2015, CCSDS Secretariat wrote: CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2015-07-002 Approval to publish CCSDS 132.0-B-2, TM Space Data Link Protocol (Blue Book, Issue 2) Results of CESG poll beginning 31 July 2015 and ending 14 August 2015: Abstain: 0 (0%) Approve Unconditionally: 7 (77.78%) (Merri, Behal, Scott, Calzolari, Moury, Suess, Barton) Approve with Conditions: 2 (22.22%) (Shames, Cola) Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%) CONDITIONS/COMMENTS: Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions): This is approved with one condition: Add references to the SCCS-ADD (CCSDS 901.0-G) and SCCS-ARD (901.1-M) to section 2.1.1 Architecture where the OSCP is also included. Also, note that the term "payload", which is used (inconsistently) in the SDLS document (CCSDS 355x0b) does not appear anywhere in this document. However, Figure 6-1 does make the relationships among User Data, Transfer Frame Data Field, and Security Header and Trailer quite clear without using this term. Keith Scott (Approve Unconditionally): In principle I concur with Tomaso that the reference to the SDLS book should be updated to reflect the published version of the SDLS Blue Book (provided that the SDLS Blue Book is approved in the same round of polling as TM). This assumes that there are no substantive differences between the draft SDLS book referenced here and the final SDLS book, which I believe is the case; however, a comment on this by the Security WG might be useful. --keith Tomaso de Cola (Approve with Conditions): I would suggest to update reference (normative) 10, so that issue 1, instead of issue 0 appears. Obviously, the "code" of the referenced CCSDS book should be updated accordingly as well. Total Respondents: 9 No response was received from the following Area(s): CSS SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with Conditions PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate CMC poll after conditions have been addressed * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2015-07-003 Approval to publish CCSDS 232.0-B-3, TC Space Data Link Protocol (Blue Book, Issue 3) Results of CESG poll beginning 31 July 2015 and ending 14 August 2015: Abstain: 0 (0%) Approve Unconditionally: 7 (77.78%) (Merri, Behal, Scott, Calzolari, Moury, Suess, Barton) Approve with Conditions: 2 (22.22%) (Shames, Cola) Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%) CONDITIONS/COMMENTS: Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions): This is approved with one condition: Add references to the SCCS-ADD (CCSDS 901.0-G) and SCCS-ARD (901.1-M) to section 2.1.1 Architecture where the OSCP is also included. Also, note that the term "payload", which is used (inconsistently) in the SDLS document (CCSDS 355x0b) does not appear anywhere in this document. However, Figure 6-1 does make the relationships among User Data, Transfer Frame Data Field, and Security Header and Trailer quite clear without using this term. Keith Scott (Approve Unconditionally): In principle I concur with Tomaso that the reference to the SDLS book should be updated to reflect the published version of the SDLS Blue Book (provided that the SDLS Blue Book is approved in the same round of polling as TC). This assumes that there are no substantive differences between the draft SDLS book referenced here and the final SDLS book, which I believe is the case; however, a comment on this by the Security WG might be useful. --keith Tomaso de Cola (Approve with Conditions): As stated for TM book, the reference to SDLS blue book should be with issue 1, instead of 0. Total Respondents: 9 No response was received from the following Area(s): CSS SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with Conditions PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate CMC poll after conditions have been addressed * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2015-07-004 Approval to publish CCSDS 732.0-B-3, AOS Space Data Link Protocol (Blue Book, Issue 3) Results of CESG poll beginning 31 July 2015 and ending 14 August 2015: Abstain: 0 (0%) Approve Unconditionally: 8 (88.89%) (Merri, Behal, Scott, Cola, Calzolari, Moury, Suess, Barton) Approve with Conditions: 1 (11.11%) (Shames) Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%) CONDITIONS/COMMENTS: Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions): This is approved with one condition: Add references to the SCCS-ADD (CCSDS 901.0-G) and SCCS-ARD (901.1-M) to section 2.1.1 Architecture where the OSCP is also included. Also, note that the term "payload", which is used (inconsistently) in the SDLS document (CCSDS 355x0b) does not appear anywhere in this document. However, Figure 6-1 does make the relationships among User Data, Transfer Frame Data Field, and Security Header and Trailer quite clear without using this term. Keith Scott (Approve Unconditionally): In principle I concur with Tomaso that the reference to the SDLS book should be updated to reflect the published version of the SDLS Blue Book (provided that the SDLS Blue Book is approved in the same round of polling as AOS). This assumes that there are no substantive differences between the draft SDLS book referenced here and the final SDLS book, which I believe is the case; however, a comment on this by the Security WG might be useful. --keith Tomaso de Cola (Approve Unconditionally): As stated for the TM book, the reference to SDLS blue book should be with issue 1, instead of 0. Total Respondents: 9 No response was received from the following Area(s): CSS SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with Conditions PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate CMC poll after conditions have been addressed * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2015-07-005 Approval to publish CCSDS 130.2-G-3, Space Data Link Protocols-Summary of Concept and Rationale (Green Book, Issue 3) Results of CESG poll beginning 31 July 2015 and ending 14 August 2015: Abstain: 0 (0%) Approve Unconditionally: 6 (75%) (Merri, Behal, Calzolari, Moury, Suess, Barton) Approve with Conditions: 2 (25%) (Shames, Cola) Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%) CONDITIONS/COMMENTS: Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions): This document still needs a significant amount of work. Here are the major issues: 1) It talks about the role of Service Providers in a number of places, but the SLE interfaces, and the role of space data service providers, is essentially ignored. The only SLE service that is included is FSP, CLTU, RAF and RCF are all left out, a major omission. 2) Prox-1 is left out, but spacecraft to spacecraft links are mentioned in several places. This tends to suggest that these links should be serviced by TC & TM, which is not typically the best approach. 3) AOS is described only in the context of audio and video services, its use for high rate data links is not even mentioned. 4) RASDS diagrams are used throughout, but there is no reference made to RASDS (CCSDS 311.0-M). References should also be made to the SCCS-ADD (CCSDS 901.0-G) and the SCCS-ARD (CCSDS 901.1-M). These documents provide the best context for understanding the relationships among all of these SLS protocols and the CSS services. 5) The treatment of COP, FOP, FARM is a little uneven and no mention is made of LTP as a means to assure reliable delivery of link layer data. 6) The only "network" protocols that are mentioned are SPP (and a little about Encap). There is not mention of other CCSDS upper layer protocols like LTP, CFDP, AMS, IP or DTN. These application layer and network layer protocols are a part of CCSDS and their relationship to the link layer should be made clear. Tomaso de Cola (Approve with Conditions): Three comments: 1) reference to SDLS (reference [21]) should be updated to issue 1. 2) In section 2 it is stated that proximity-1 is out of the scope of the book, because a separated green book is already available about proximity-1. I'd place a similar statement also in section 1.2, where actually the scope of the book is established. 3) In section 5.2, it is mentioned that proximity-1 does not have specific security requirements. Since the book does not address Proximity-1, I would drop this consideration. Total Respondents: 8 No response was received from the following Area(s): CSS SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with Conditions PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate CMC poll after conditions have been addressed Thomas Gannett +1 443 472 0805 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 130x2g21_CESG_Approval_GJK-SEA GM.doc Type: application/msword Size: 462336 bytes Desc: 130x2g21_CESG_Approval_GJK-SEA GM.doc URL: From greg.j.kazz at jpl.nasa.gov Tue Aug 25 16:56:04 2015 From: greg.j.kazz at jpl.nasa.gov (Kazz, Greg J (312B)) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 16:56:04 +0000 Subject: [Sls-slp] Response to CESG comments on 130.2-G-2.1 Space Data Link Protocol GB Message-ID: Dear SLP members, I have responded to additional CESG comments (from Gian Paolo) and have placed an update to the draft Space Data Link Protocols GB (CCSDS 130.2-G-2.1) on the SLP WG CWE under http://tinyurl.com/p4q2vl4 The file name ends in “bis”. Please review that version because it contains the latest revisions. Again I would like to terminate this review by Sept 2. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Best regards, Greg Kazz Chairman SLS-SLP WG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: