SPECTRA — Kernel CarrierInterface needs rework

Review 16-05-2025

Carrier Interface
o I don’t understand the strange mix of layers here in this data element. It makes for a very confusing model. I suggest this is split up into different elements for clarity’s sake.
o Semantics:
 I don’t understand why SPECTRA is dependent on the tools to define these enumerations but also provides a list here in the RFC that the tools should enforce. I recommend either a proper specification of an enumeration or a totally free String field. The strange half measure will not work well across multiple tool vendors.
 Transport Protocol: Not every message follows one of these two transport protocols. This isn’t even a complete list of the typical internet protocol suite. It also doesn’t consider systems that don’t use internet protocol suite transport protocols.
 Network protocols: this is not a list of network protocols per the referenced OSI layer. If this list is intended to be something else, then it should be renamed. If not, it will lead to confusion. It is also missing some needed values such as ARNIC 629 and EFABus.
 Network interface: This is a strange list of values that don’t match the “network interface” term in my opinion. “RF for SATCOM” is an entire suite of protocols. “Ethernet” is the common name for a cable type. “1553” is a bus protocol and “Wi-Fi” is, again, an entire suite of RF protocols. This field needs to be completely reworked and is part of the problem of mushing a bunch of OSI layers together. It’s unworkable as it is now.