[Sls-slp] Re: Results of CESG Polls closing 14 August 2015

Tue Aug 18 23:45:43 UTC 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" <tomg at aiaa.org> 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: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sls-slp/attachments/20150818/e98bf3b6/attachment.pdf>
-------------- 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: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sls-slp/attachments/20150818/e98bf3b6/attachment.doc>