<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.apple-tab-span
{mso-style-name:apple-tab-span;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Kevin, FWIW, I disagree. I don’t think you have stated here what the “clear need” for repeating the interoperability testing of all parts of CFDP might be.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">The purpose of this interoperability testing is not to validate the correct operation of protocol implementations. It is rather to validate the clarity and completeness
of the protocol specification – demonstrating that the document provided sufficient guidance to enable independent implementers to develop software that interoperates.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">The clarity and completeness of the original, unmodified portions of the specification was validated many years ago, in the extensive interoperability testing
that preceded publication of the CFDP Blue Book, and it remains valid because those portions of the specification have not been revised.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">What has not yet been validated is the revised text of the specification, and that is what requires interoperability testing now. I don’t think additional testing
beyond what is required to prove out the specification can be justified.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Scott<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></a></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Kevin K Gifford [mailto:kevin.gifford@Colorado.EDU]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, July 13, 2015 9:55 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Scott, Keith L (9730-Affiliate); Secretariat@mailman.ccsds.org; CCSDS All<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Burleigh, Scott C (312B); sis-cfdp@mailman.ccsds.org; sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Cesg-all] CFDPv1 status update<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Hi Keith – <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">From a pedantic test engineering standpoint, I'd strongly suggest regression testing the entire CFDP protocol suite. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Certainly, I am not in-the-loop for the detailed technical protocol updates, but unless the updates were very minor, I see no engineering reason for not testing/retesting/regression-testing
the entire updated (and perhaps substantially roto-tilled) codebase. If the decision is a funds-available business decision, and the updates are very minor, then perhaps with explicit justification the additional testing could be either reasonably (defendable
by some reviewed document) waived or possibly postponed.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">I understand this increases the testing burden and necessitates (most likely) the need for additional resources. But if CFDP is used on any current (or future)
spacecraft, and especially the ISS in the near-term, then I think not testing the entire updated protocol suite is an engineering mistake (not performing due diligence when there is a clear need).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">I just don't see now not retesting the entire codebase can be justified unless the updates are very, very minor. Am I missing something?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Kevin<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">From:
</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><Scott>, "Keith L." <<a href="mailto:kscott@mitre.org">kscott@mitre.org</a>><br>
<b>Date: </b>Monday, July 13, 2015 10:34 AM<br>
<b>To: </b>"<a href="mailto:Secretariat@mailman.ccsds.org">Secretariat@mailman.ccsds.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:Secretariat@mailman.ccsds.org">Secretariat@mailman.ccsds.org</a>>, CCSDS All <<a href="mailto:cesg-all@mailman.ccsds.org">cesg-all@mailman.ccsds.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject: </b>[Cesg-all] CFDPv1 status update<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">All,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">The CFDPv1 book completed
<a href="http://public.ccsds.org/sites/cwe/rids/Lists/CCSDS%207270P41/Overview.aspx">
agency review</a>, and the changes necessitated by the RIDs were minor enough to not warrant another agency review and have been resolved. The attached book with resolutions, and RID resolution spreadsheet, are for your information.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">The working group is going to interoperability test the NEW parts of the protocol only — and that work is under way. When the interoperability testing is complete
SIS will issue a resolution to submit the book for final CESG Poll and then CMC Poll; that resolution will be accompanied by the final version of the book (hopefully same as attached) and the interoperability test report for the new elements of the protocol.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">As just mentioned, to reduce the interoperability testing burden, we plan to interoperability test only the NEW portions of CFDP (capabilities added by the current
update). When we submit the final document and interoperability test report, SIS will essentially be requesting a waiver on testing the remaining parts of the protocol. If anyone knows now that they’ll have an issue with this approach, could you please let
me know?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">V/r,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">—keith<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">From:
</span></b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Scott Burleigh<br>
<b>Date: </b>Monday, July 13, 2015 at 12:16 PM<br>
<b>To: </b>"Scott, Keith L."<br>
<b>Subject: </b>RE: We're ready to go with a resolution to publish the CFDPv1 Blue Book, right?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">I think we can assert that none of the technical changes introduced since the agency review affect protocol functionality profoundly enough to warrant the expense
of an additional agency review; all of the changes are minor details. That’s going to be a judgment call for CESG, I guess, but I think it’s a defensible assertion.</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Scott</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>