<font size=2 face="Calibri">Dear John, </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">I am in favour of the most flexible solution,
the one with the simple type specification “IntPos” in the ASN.1. </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">So, this would be the "type"
of the new configuration parameter that Wolfgang agreed to add to the Framework.
</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">A Service using the Framework may/can still
delimit the lower/upper values for such parameter, depending on service-specific
constraints.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">Kind regards,<br>
Margherita</font>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">----------------------------------------------------------------<br>
Margherita di Giulio<br>
Ground Station Back-end Section (HSO-GIB)<br>
European Space Agency ESA/ESOC<br>
Robert-Bosch-Str. 5<br>
D-64293 Darmstadt - Germany<br>
Tel: +49-6151-902779<br>
e-mail: Margherita.di.Giulio@esa.int<br>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">From:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">John Pietras <john.pietras@gst.com></font>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">To:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">"CCSDS_CSTSWG
(css-csts@mailman.ccsds.org)" <css-csts@mailman.ccsds.org>,
</font>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Date:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">25/11/2014 20:05</font>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Subject:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">[Css-csts] Range
of delivery cycle values</font>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Sent by:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">css-csts-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org</font>
<br>
<hr noshade>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">CSTSWG colleagues ---</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">I am in the process of updating the status
and disposition of the RIDs that were submitted against the Monitored Data
CSTS Red-1 book. One of those RIDs, NASA-4, Min/max values for delivery
cycle, asks what an implementation should do if the delivery cycle requested
in the Cyclic Report START invocation cannot be supported by that implementation.
The CSTS SFW specifies a range of 1 second to 600 seconds (10 minutes),
which is enforced by the ASN.1 (that is, if anything greater than 600 is
submitted, it will cause a protocol abort). </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">In our discussion of this RID at the London
meeting, we decided to make the allowed delivery cycle range a configuration
parameter, such that the if a START invocation contains a delivery-cycle
value that is within the range supported by the ASN.1 type specification
but outside the range permitted by the configuration parameter, the invocation
will be rejected with the diagnostic “out of range’. Wolfgang agreed
to add an appropriate configuration parameter to the Framework Cyclic Report
procedure.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">I also seem to recall us discussing whether
it makes sense for the Cyclic Report procedure to put a hard upper limit
(currently 600) on the number of seconds allowed between reports. If a
user wants reports only every 15 minutes, why should any implementation
be prohibited from providing less-frequent reports? My recollection is
that we decided to remove the upper bound, but my notes from the meeting
do not mention this part of the discussion. </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">So my questions are:</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">a) Did we indeed decide
to change the delivery cyclic “range” allowed by the Cyclic Report procedure
to be anything from one second and up? That would mean that the specification
of the type for deliveryCycle would change from “INTEGER (1..600)” to
simply “IntPos” in the ASN.1.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">b) Would the associated
configuration cover only the lower bound on allowed delivery cycle values
(e.g., at most every 2 seconds even though the Framework supports once
every second), or would it also allow an upper bound to be set (even though,
if (a) is correct, the procedure itself does not have an upper bound)?
In effect, will there be one configuration parameter, minimumAllowedDeliveryCycle,
or also a second configuration parameter maximumAllowedDeliveryCycle (or
perhaps a complex configuration parameter that contains both the minimum
and maximum allowed values)?</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">Thanks.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">Best regards,</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">John </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri"> </font><tt><font size=2>_______________________________________________<br>
Css-csts mailing list<br>
Css-csts@mailman.ccsds.org<br>
</font></tt><a href="http://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/css-csts"><tt><font size=2>http://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/css-csts</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2><br>
</font></tt>
<br><PRE>This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee or addressees only.
The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in whole or in part) of its
content is not permitted.
If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system.
Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the sender.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
</PRE>