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

[Eric Travis <[e-mail]>]

Dan,

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.

I'm afraid that you are mistaken...

There is *nobody* advocating a "new IP protocol", IPv4 and IPv6 do
nicely with
the identified space extensions - if that's what a mission eventually
chooses
to use.  

I think you will find that all the testing that Will had previously
referenced
was over IPv4.

Commercial support means different things to different "industries";
The space community is well supported by industry, it's just that it may
not be yours. Diversity is generally a good thing.

The overlap between the traditional Internet economy and the spaceborne
community is likely to be terribly small except when the data hits a
groundstation - then it is more of a traditional networking environment.

Spacecraft have been operating a long time without commercial support
from "Internet-related" companies... The ability to purchase flight
qualified hardware/software from companies such as your own would be
nice, but it is hardly a critical requirement.

So, while it is a cool idea to stitch up end-to-end connections from an
orbiting instrument to a principle investigator in Lyon, a compelling
reason
to do so (economic or technical) has yet to surface.  In time, it may still
come - until then, mission architects always have had that option.

BTW: SCPS is not a "NASA/JPL" thing;

   Please let's try and get past these attempts at marginalizing, OK?  
   You are inadvertantly insulting more people that you might imagine
   who have never been affiliated with NASA, let alone JPL.

> 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.

There is always the promise of something brighter on the horizon.

RTP is not really a suitable solution for reliable bulk data transfer.
I would have expected a reference to something like SCTP in such an
argument.
 
Surely this isn't all just a case of "Not Invented Here"...

> 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.

Well... the space community (the folks who *are* intended to use the SCPS
recommendations) has already "given them legitimacy" by standardizing them;
You may not think much of the standards organizations (plural) that
cover the community of interest - and that is your right.

> So why not?

Lack of return on investment?
  
Lack of forseeable benefit to the IETF (what motivation is there
for the an IETF area director to put this on an agenda)?

Lack of forseeable benefit to the space community?

I'm afraid that if this is as cogent the argument gets for bringing niche
community requirments (how many spacecraft get launched each year that are
not telecommunication bent-pipes?) then we're not going to get very far in
convincing those who capable of supporting an IETF effort.

I'm still faced with the question:

Why?

Based on your response, I can only conclude that there is no compelling
need/benefit for the IETF to attempt to standardize what happens in
niche communities.

Terrestrial wireless will eventually have a huge impact on the Internet,
but communications to space based entities? Not in the foreseeable future.

Eric