Re: The (perceived) requirement to be an IETF Standard

[David Carek <[e-mail]>]

Daniel Shell wrote:
> Eric
> 
> This my opinion on SCPS.
> 
> If NASA/JPL decide that this is SCPS and it family the "space standard"
> then do it.  Do not expect much commercial support for a new IP protocol.
> 
> Also there are lot of options using IP that NASA has not even explored 
> and should be look at
> such as RTP, and other enhancements ongoing in the IETF.
> 
> Also if SCPS and its family is put on the RFC standards track if give 
> this protocol some legitimacy
> with every one who is going to use it.
> 
> So why not?


My guess is that the market won't demand it.  Standards seem to benefit 
the industry when there are sufficient quantities and companies involved 
to warrant a standard. I doubt the space segment will ever have similar 
market forces that drive the terrestrial side.  Also, the needs that 
govern space qualified hardware and software are very different than the 
terrestrial market, so there may be a culture clash trying to develop 
these standards through the IETF (this is just a total guess). If the 
SCPS spec were part of the IETF standard, I doubt it would cause 
terrestrial vendors to start supporting it.

That's not to say that the IETF standards track would be a bad idea for 
the space segment, I just don't think there's a driving market force 
that will make it happen.  SCPS is a very nice specification to handle 
the limitations of space communications.  If a few flight qualified 
implementations can be developed, it could still benefit the space 
segment.  It's mostly roll your own right now.