$)C<span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">Dear All,</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">I would support
that idea. We could be even more general (also to avoid changing the current
draft standard wrt to the MIB) to just have one ID specified as 'Reserved
for Private and/or Experimental Use'.</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">Regards,</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">Felix</span>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:sans-serif">From:
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:sans-serif"><Jeremy.Mayer@dlr.de></span>
<br><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:sans-serif">To:
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:sans-serif"><chkoo@kari.re.kr>,
<sis-cfdpv1@mailman.ccsds.org></span>
<br><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:sans-serif">Date:
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:sans-serif">11/12/2019
08:01</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:sans-serif">Subject:
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:sans-serif">Re:
[SIS-CFDPV1] revised draft specification</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:sans-serif">Sent
by: </span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:sans-serif">"SIS-CFDPV1"
<sis-cfdpv1-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org></span>
<br>
<hr noshade>
<br>
<br>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri">Hi
Cheol,</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri">I
can answer your questions about the Checksum registry: First, I'm not sure
why the checksum ID's are non-sequential, since I'm not sure what the SANA
website is sorting by, but if you click the "ChecksumID" column
header, it should sort correctly. </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri">I
would suggest that, in the scenario which you outlined, the MIB containing
the supported checksums for a receiving entity should be updated via TC
and/or the desired checksum should be sent during a filestore request,
but that's a more impactful change. I am adverse to a one-to-one allocation
of checksum ID's to agencies, since it ultimately negates the purpose of
the checksum ID and complicates mission operations and cross support: a
single receiving CFDP entity at a ground station can (and likely will)
support multiple missions, some of which may be performed from different
agencies, each of which may have their own checksumming capabilities and
requirements. If a single checksum ID is allocated to each agency, the
receiving entity will be unable to determine the "real" checksum
in use, unless that data is conveyed via some out-of-band mechanism. </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri">Additionally,
different files from a single mission may require different checksums,
either due to bandwidth constraints, mission phase, and/or avionics capabilities,
meaning that the receiving entity will have to be aware of the mapping
between entities, sessions, and checksum configurations. This is further
complicated by the rise of file-based operations and advanced FDIR systems:
it may be possible for the sending entity to change checksum modes in the
event of a failure, in order in order to reduce power utilization and/or
computational complexity. </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri">What
would be possible is to allocate a single checksum ID to be "MIB defined".
If that ID is in use, then it's up to the sender/receiver to determine
the checksum out-of-band, but I think that would require some changes to
the blue book.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri">Thanks,</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri">Jeremy
</span></p>
<br>
<hr>
<br><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"><b>From:</b> SIS-CFDPV1
<sis-cfdpv1-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org> on behalf of 18C6H8 <chkoo@kari.re.kr><b><br>
Sent:</b> Wednesday, December 11, 2019 1:48:18 AM<b><br>
To:</b> sis-cfdpv1@mailman.ccsds.org<b><br>
Subject:</b> Re: [SIS-CFDPV1] revised draft specification</span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif">
</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif"> </span>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">Hi,
Scott.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">I
like your idea. I am currently working on the modification of CFDP software
from my side, and I love to perform the supplementary interoperability
test when the updated ION and interoperability test plan are available.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">I
don!/t see many testing items are required for this supplementary testing.
However as I sent it earlier to you there is a tricky issue with regard
to handling condition code of !.Unsupported checksum type(1011)!/. In
order to make that situation, the !.Unsupported checksum type!/ is generated,
happen, a CFDP (sending) entity should be able to generate a checksum field
by a checksum algorithm that the other CFDP (receiving) entity does not
support. As there are not much choices in selection of checksum algorithms,
it can be tricky because one CFDP entity may have to implement an unnecessary
checksum algorithm that is even not consistent with CFDP Checksum Identifiers
in SANA registry (</span><a href=https://sanaregistry.org/r/checksum_identifiers><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:#0082bf;font-family:sans-serif"><u>https://sanaregistry.org/r/checksum_identifiers</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">).</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
* short question : why are the number of the checksum ID in the SANA
not consistently sequential? E.g., 4,5,</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:red;font-family:sans-serif">(6?)</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">,7,</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:red;font-family:sans-serif">(8?)</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">,9,10,11,12,13,14,</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:red;font-family:sans-serif">6,8</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">,15.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">After
thinking about this issue, I like to propose an idea. Why don!/t we allocate
a Checksum ID to each space agencies, e.g., KARI reserve 5 as a checksum
ID for potential use. Then KARI can freely choose the checksum algorithm
for checksum ID 5, e.g., just a copy of modular, CRC32 or whatever or in-house
algorithm for sure. When KARI put the 5 at the checksum type field in Metadata
PDU, with all the interoperability testing with space agencies, the !.Unsupported
checksum type!/ condition code should be designated at the FIN PDU from
a receiving CFDP entity since all space agencies except KARI doesn!/t
have any reference for the checksum ID of 5. How do you think?</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">Cheol</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"><b>From:</b>
SIS-CFDPV1 <sis-cfdpv1-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org> <b>On Behalf Of
</b>Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B) via SIS-CFDPV1<b><br>
Sent:</b> Wednesday, December 11, 2019 1:21 AM<b><br>
To:</b> sis-cfdpv1@mailman.ccsds.org<b><br>
Subject:</b> [SIS-CFDPV1] revised draft specification</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Hi,
all. Following some additional discussion of the RID dispositions
proposed in the Darmstadt meeting, we now have got a final (I hope) draft
specification posted to CWE at </span><a href="https://cwe.ccsds.org/sis/docs/SIS-CFDPV1/Draft%20Documents/727x0b5%20--%20Specification%20--%20Blue%20Book/727x0p42_working%204.doc?Web=1"><span style=" font-size:11pt;color:#0082bf;font-family:Calibri"><u>https://cwe.ccsds.org/sis/docs/SIS-CFDPV1/Draft%20Documents/727x0b5%20--%20Specification%20--%20Blue%20Book/727x0p42_working%204.doc?Web=1</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">;
PDF is at </span><a href="https://cwe.ccsds.org/sis/docs/SIS-CFDPV1/Draft%20Documents/727x0b5%20--%20Specification%20--%20Blue%20Book/727x0p42_working%204.pdf"><span style=" font-size:11pt;color:#0082bf;font-family:Calibri"><u>https://cwe.ccsds.org/sis/docs/SIS-CFDPV1/Draft%20Documents/727x0b5%20--%20Specification%20--%20Blue%20Book/727x0p42_working%204.pdf</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">This
draft has gone to the Secretariat for final editing, but the technical
stuff won!/t be changing unless we discover a problem in interoperability
testing.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Speaking
of which, I hope to do that (small, supplementary) interoperability test
in January. Cheol and Chenyunjun, please take one more look at the
markups in the revised spec to make sure the final tweaks are reflected
in your code? I need to modify ION!/s CFDP as well and hope to have
that done in early January. We!/ve discussed a plan for this supplementary
testing, and we should try to tie off that discussion and finalize the
plan sometime in the next couple of weeks. (Holidays in the U.S.
will complicate this, but it should still be doable.)</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">The
end is in sight, I swear.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Scott</span></p>
<br><tt><span style=" font-size:10pt">_______________________________________________<br>
SIS-CFDPV1 mailing list<br>
SIS-CFDPV1@mailman.ccsds.org<br>
</span></tt><a href="https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sis-cfdpv1"><tt><span style=" font-size:10pt">https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sis-cfdpv1</span></tt></a><tt><span style=" font-size:10pt"><br>
</span></tt>
<br>
<br>