IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Satellites running IP

"Adrian J. Hooke" <adrian.j.hooke@jpl.nasa.gov> Tue, 18 June 2002 17:04 UTC

Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020618093400.0213e6a0@pop.jpl.nasa.gov>
X-Sender: ahooke@pop.jpl.nasa.gov
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 10:04:40 -0700
To: Daniel Shell <dshell@cisco.com>
From: "Adrian J. Hooke" <adrian.j.hooke@jpl.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Satellites running IP
Cc: tcpsat@grc.nasa.gov
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20020618082508.0170da30@lint.cisco.com>
References: <3D0A5B4A.485E0B9E@gst.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Sender: owner-tcpsat@grc.nasa.gov
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1137
Lines: 30

At 08:25 AM 6/18/2002 -0400, Daniel Shell wrote:
>Is SCPS an IETF RFC on a standards track yet?

Dan:

Could you perhaps ask your question a bit more precisely? Which of the four 
SCPS protocols would you suggest should be launched on an IETF standards track?

If you are talking about the SCPS flavor of TCP (TCP Tranquility), in what 
context do you ask the question? TCP running between two ground end systems 
over a satellite link, or TCP running from a ground end system to an end 
system onboard a satellite?

If the latter, what would be the benefit to you of IETF standardization of 
TCP Tranquility? If it was on a standards track, would CISCO Systems Gobal 
[sic] Defense and Space Group then be interested in investing corporate 
funds to build a bunch of COTS products to support space missions?

Best regards

Adrian J. Hooke
Manager, DOD-NASA Space Communications Protocol Standards (SCPS) Project
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory,
Interplanetary Network Directorate
M/S 303-400, 4800 Oak Grove Drive
Pasadena, California 91109-8099, USA
+1.818.354.3063 OFFICE
+1.818.653.9553 MOBILE
+1 818.354.6290 FAX
http://www.scps.org

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email