[Css-csts] RE: Version 2 procedures?

Thu Mar 31 09:28:36 EST 2011

Dear John,

We have a prototype implementation based on version 1. That's why I
considered to increment it to 2 in order not to identify clearly the
prototypes implementation.

Let's discuss next time we are on the telephone and agree on the approach.

Best regards
Yves

             "John Pietras"                                                  
             <john.pietras at gst.                                              
             com>                                                         To 
                                        <Yves.Doat at esa.int>                  
             31/03/2011 21:38                                             cc 
                                        <css-csts at mailman.ccsds.org>         
                                                                     Subject 
                                        RE: Version 2 procedures?            

Yves,
First, I don't think that this is a critical issue whatever the final
decision is. But it is my understanding that the only versions that are
meaningful are the ones that are documented in approved Recommended Standards
(that is Blue Books). That is, once a book has become Blue, all White Books,
Red Books (and prototypes based on them) become cease to have any standing.

 I realize that this was specifically *not* true in the case of the first set
of SLE implementations (which were based on Red Books that couldn't be
approved before they were needed to support INTEGRAL), but as everyone knows
that has been a point of trouble and confusion from the beginning - the
specifications of the versions of the SLE services that were operationally
implemented by ESA and DSN were only available on the CCSDS web site during
the Red Book review period, and disappeared once RAF B-1 and F-CLTU B-1 were
posted. Anyone wanting to build systems compatible with the DSN
implementations had to ask Michael Stoloff for copies of his Red Books. But
the SLE case should be the exception, not the rule (in retrospect, CCSDS
should have probably promoted the INTEGRAL Red Books to be the first Blue
Books under some "mission critical" criteria, but that is a different
conversation).

To me, allocating unique version numbers to Red Book versions of procedures
implies an intention to be able to use those Red Book versions even after a
Blue Book has been approved. Although that was the case for the first SLE
implementations, I don't believe that it is anyone's intent to use a Red
Book-based prototype in an operational environment.

Of course, this is just my opinion. I see that Erik has offered his comments,
and I believe that he and I are thinking along the same lines. Was this
procedure version renumbering discussed in London? I did a search for
"version" in both the Minutes of that meeting and your RID resolutions and
found no reference to version in this sense.

As I said, these are my thoughts on the subject, and I don't think that it is
critical one way or the other. But I would be curious to hear what the other
members of the WG think.

Best regards,
John

From: Yves.Doat at esa.int [mailto:Yves.Doat at esa.int]
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 9:27 PM
To: John Pietras
Cc: css-csts at mailman.ccsds.org
Subject: Re: Version 2 procedures?

Dear John,

In my view, the procedure should get the version 2 in the blue book as
version 1 was in the red book and was already used. I do not see a particular
reason to link the version 1 to the blue book.
In case I forget to change some of them I will cross check.
If you consider that it's a problem, please let me know.
Best regards
Yves

 "John Pietras" <john.pietras at gst.com>                                       

 30/03/2011 22:37                                                         To 
                                                    <Yves.Doat at esa.int>      
                                                                          cc 
                                                    <css-csts at mailman.ccsds. 
                                                    org>                     
                                                                     Subject 
                                                    Version 2 procedures?    

Yves,
In the December draft of the CSTS FW, the Association Control, Information
Query, Buffered Data Delivery, Unbuffered Data Delivery, Throw Event, and
Notification procedures have had their version numbers changed to 2, but not
Cyclic Report and Data Processing remain at procedure version number 1. Why
were those version numbers changed to 2? How would it be possible that the
first version of a Blue Book would have anything other than the first
versions of the procedures that are specified by that Blue Book?

Best regards,
John