<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=ks_c_5601-1987">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Gulim;
panose-1:2 11 6 0 0 1 1 1 1 1;}
@font-face
{font-family:Gulim;
panose-1:2 11 6 0 0 1 1 1 1 1;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@Gulim";
panose-1:2 11 6 0 0 1 1 1 1 1;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Gulim",serif;
mso-fareast-language:KO;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Gulim",serif;
mso-fareast-language:KO;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Gulim",serif;
mso-fareast-language:KO;}
span.EmailStyle19
{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="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Guys, please. I believe the draft specification is already perfectly clear on this, and I am strongly opposed to revising the text
in any way at this point. We had several months of Agency Review, RIDs were filed, and all of the RIDs have been addressed to the satisfaction of the RID authors. If there were a significant technical problem here then we would be obliged to fix it, but
I am pretty sure there is none.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">The checksum algorithm IDs that currently populate the registry are the ones that we can select among for interoperability testing.
If an agency wants to interoperate CFDP with another agency, then it must use one of the checksum algorithms that are listed in the registry.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">If an agency wants to use an algorithm that¡¯s not in the registry, for CFDP interoperation with one or more other agencies, then it
needs to add that algorithm to the registry so that the peer agency can know how to support it. We have procedures for adding things to registries.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">If an agency wants to use an algorithm that¡¯s not in the registry
<i>for private CFDP operation</i>, it can use whatever it likes. It won¡¯t be compliant, strictly speaking, but since it isn¡¯t interoperating that may not matter. If it wants to be strictly compliant then it will need to add the new algorithm to the registry.
Again, we have procedures for doing that.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Let¡¯s please not overthink this. I am pretty sure the current draft specification enables agencies to use CFDP in an interoperable
way. Let¡¯s move on to testing and publication.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Scott<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></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"> SIS-CFDPV1 <sis-cfdpv1-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Jeremy.Mayer@dlr.de<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, December 11, 2019 1:13 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Felix.Flentge@esa.int<br>
<b>Cc:</b> sis-cfdpv1@mailman.ccsds.org; sis-cfdpv1-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [EXTERNAL] Re: [SIS-CFDPV1] revised draft specification<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div id="divtagdefaultwrapper">
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Hi Felix,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">I think that, if we even suggest that users have the choice of private checksums, we have to provide some guidance with regards to the processing of these checksums. Otherwise we'll wind up in the
scenario which Cheol pointed out where the receiving entity assumes that it can process the private checksum, but the file fails validation and generates a "file checksum" failure, since the checksum is private. In my opinion, that isn't really the correct
behavior, since a Unsupported Checksum Type fault would be more appropriate. <o:p>
</o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">It doesn't have to be much, "the private checksum MAY be implemented." & "If the private checksum is implemented, the sending and receiving entities must ensure that an unambiguous selection of checksum
algorithms is ensured for a given file transfer. If this cannot be ensured, an Unsupported Checksum Type fault SHALL be generated". This also covers the interoperability testing: if the sending entity can support the selection of a private checksum while the
receiving entity can't determine it, then it's compliant with the specification.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Given that the filestore request does not contain the desired checksum type (and my suggestion to add it was simply a workaround to increasing the MIB complexity), the receiving entity will not know
what checksum is in use until the initial metadata PDU, at which point we have to be able to deterministically process or reject it.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Thanks,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Jeremy<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center">
<hr size="3" width="98%" align="center">
</div>
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg">
<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">
<a href="mailto:Felix.Flentge@esa.int">Felix.Flentge@esa.int</a> <<a href="mailto:Felix.Flentge@esa.int">Felix.Flentge@esa.int</a>><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, December 11, 2019 9:25:52 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Mayer, Jeremy<br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:chkoo@kari.re.kr">chkoo@kari.re.kr</a>; <a href="mailto:sis-cfdpv1@mailman.ccsds.org">
sis-cfdpv1@mailman.ccsds.org</a>; <a href="mailto:sis-cfdpv1-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org">
sis-cfdpv1-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [SIS-CFDPV1] revised draft specification</span> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Hmmh,</span>
<br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">I wouldn't like to introduce too much change in the draft at the current stage.
</span><br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">In general, I think:</span>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">1) We could have checksum ID for private / experimental use but its use should be discouraged.</span>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">2) Implementations may or may not support private / experimental checksums (or be configurable). This could go to the MIB but does not have to (as for the other checksum ID). It's an implementation
matter.</span> <br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">3) If an implementation chooses to support private / experimental checksums, it will try to apply a checksum which may either succeed or fail. Which exact checksum to apply is again an implementation
matter, could be per source or generic or guessing based on some other information ...</span>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">4) If an implementation chooses not to support private / experimental checksums, it will raise the Unsupported Checksum Type fault.</span>
<br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">For the interoperability testing, I am not sure how much of this has to be covered. As the private / experimental checksum is, well 'private/experimental', I don't think we have to test something
for the standard interoperability. Dealing with unsupported checksums seems also more a 'local' entity issue and not so much required for interoperability testing.</span>
<br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Regards,</span> <br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Felix</span> <br>
<br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#5F5F5F">From: </span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><<a href="mailto:Jeremy.Mayer@dlr.de">Jeremy.Mayer@dlr.de</a>></span>
<br>
<span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#5F5F5F">To: </span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><<a href="mailto:chkoo@kari.re.kr">chkoo@kari.re.kr</a>>, <<a href="mailto:Felix.Flentge@esa.int">Felix.Flentge@esa.int</a>>,
<<a href="mailto:sis-cfdpv1@mailman.ccsds.org">sis-cfdpv1@mailman.ccsds.org</a>>, <<a href="mailto:sis-cfdpv1-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org">sis-cfdpv1-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org</a>></span>
<br>
<span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#5F5F5F">Date: </span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">11/12/2019 08:49</span>
<br>
<span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#5F5F5F">Subject: </span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Re: [SIS-CFDPV1] revised draft specification</span>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center">
<hr size="3" width="100%" noshade="" style="color:#A0A0A0" align="center">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Hi Cheol,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Understood, and to respond to both of your emails at once: I think that the "private/experimental" checksum ID will cover this scenario, without requiring the allocation of the limited range of checksum ID's
which are supported by CFDP.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">To use your example, if the sending entity uses a private checksum algorithm, then they would put checksum ID
<b>private_use</b> (whichever ID that may be) into the metadata PDU. Upon receiving that checksum, the receiving entity
<b>MUST </b>search the MIB in order to determine which checksum is used for that source CFDP entity ID, and process accordingly. If it doesn't find a checksum, then the "Unsupported Checksum Type" error is raised.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">This would still increase the complexity of the MIB and checksum processing pipeline, but we can outline that the private_use checksum ID MUST search the MIB to determine the actual checksum algorithm, and shall
fail if more or less than 1 checksum matches for a given CFDP source entity ID.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Thanks,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Jeremy</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center">
<hr size="3" width="100%" align="center">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<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">
</span><span lang="KO" style="font-size:11.0pt">±¸Ã¶È¸</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> <<a href="mailto:chkoo@kari.re.kr">chkoo@kari.re.kr</a>><b><br>
Sent:</b> Wednesday, December 11, 2019 8:46:23 AM<b><br>
To:</b> Mayer, Jeremy; <a href="mailto:Felix.Flentge@esa.int">Felix.Flentge@esa.int</a>;
<a href="mailto:sis-cfdpv1@mailman.ccsds.org">sis-cfdpv1@mailman.ccsds.org</a>; <a href="mailto:sis-cfdpv1-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org">
sis-cfdpv1-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org</a><b><br>
Subject:</b> RE: [SIS-CFDPV1] revised draft specification</span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">
</span><br>
<span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Hi, Felix.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">If we choose one ID as 'Reserved for Private and/or Experimental Use, that means a CFDP implementation can support the ID; therefore when the ID is applied to a filestore request, a receiving
entity (who can handle the ID) will have no problem to process the request. No fault condition can be issued.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Jeremy¡¯s idea can handle the situation. But a ¡®prior coordination between agencies¡¯ should be made before entering a real testing in order to know which one is an implemented checksum algorithm
(because the sending entity have to process a file delivery request), or a fake algorithm (non-support algorithm). I think that could be not what we want in this context.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Cheol</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><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">
<a href="mailto:Jeremy.Mayer@dlr.de">Jeremy.Mayer@dlr.de</a> <<a href="mailto:Jeremy.Mayer@dlr.de">Jeremy.Mayer@dlr.de</a>>
<b><br>
Sent:</b> Wednesday, December 11, 2019 4:17 PM<b><br>
To:</b> <a href="mailto:Felix.Flentge@esa.int">Felix.Flentge@esa.int</a>; </span>
<span lang="KO" style="font-size:11.0pt">±¸Ã¶È¸</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> <<a href="mailto:chkoo@kari.re.kr">chkoo@kari.re.kr</a>>;
<a href="mailto:sis-cfdpv1@mailman.ccsds.org">sis-cfdpv1@mailman.ccsds.org</a>; <a href="mailto:sis-cfdpv1-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org">
sis-cfdpv1-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org</a><b><br>
Subject:</b> Re: [SIS-CFDPV1] revised draft specification</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Felix,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">I agree. Checksum ID's 0-15 are reserved for CFDP, so that checksum can be added to the blue book without altering the registry. However, it may make sense to allocate two checksum ID's for general (non-CFDP
specific) use: one for private and one for experimental. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">If we did that, checksums 0-3 would be "real" checksums, 4-12 would be reserved for CFDP, 13 & 14 would be private/experimental, and 15 would NULL.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Thanks,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Jeremy</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center">
<hr size="3" width="100%" align="center">
</div>
<p><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">
</span><a href="mailto:Felix.Flentge@esa.int"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Felix.Flentge@esa.int</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> <</span><a href="mailto:Felix.Flentge@esa.int"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Felix.Flentge@esa.int</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">><b><br>
Sent:</b> Wednesday, December 11, 2019 8:10:41 AM<b><br>
To:</b> </span><a href="mailto:chkoo@kari.re.kr"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">chkoo@kari.re.kr</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">;
</span><a href="mailto:sis-cfdpv1@mailman.ccsds.org"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">sis-cfdpv1@mailman.ccsds.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">; SIS-CFDPV1; Mayer, Jeremy<b><br>
Subject:</b> Re: [SIS-CFDPV1] revised draft specification</span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Dear All,</span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">
<br>
</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><br>
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><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">
<br>
</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><br>
Regards,</span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><br>
Felix</span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#5F5F5F"><br>
From: </span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><</span><a href="mailto:Jeremy.Mayer@dlr.de"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Jeremy.Mayer@dlr.de</span></a><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">></span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">
</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#5F5F5F"><br>
To: </span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><</span><a href="mailto:chkoo@kari.re.kr"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">chkoo@kari.re.kr</span></a><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>,
<</span><a href="mailto:sis-cfdpv1@mailman.ccsds.org"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">sis-cfdpv1@mailman.ccsds.org</span></a><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">></span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">
</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#5F5F5F"><br>
Date: </span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">11/12/2019 08:01</span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">
</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#5F5F5F"><br>
Subject: </span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Re: [SIS-CFDPV1] revised draft specification</span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">
</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#5F5F5F"><br>
Sent by: </span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">"SIS-CFDPV1" <</span><a href="mailto:sis-cfdpv1-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">sis-cfdpv1-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org</span></a><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">></span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center">
<hr size="3" width="100%" noshade="" style="color:#A0A0A0" align="center">
</div>
<p style="margin-bottom:2.5in"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Hi Cheol,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Thanks,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Jeremy </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center">
<hr size="3" width="100%" align="center">
</div>
<p><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><br>
From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> SIS-CFDPV1 <</span><a href="mailto:sis-cfdpv1-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">sis-cfdpv1-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">>
on behalf of </span><span lang="KO" style="font-size:11.0pt">±¸Ã¶È¸</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> <</span><a href="mailto:chkoo@kari.re.kr"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">chkoo@kari.re.kr</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">><b><br>
Sent:</b> Wednesday, December 11, 2019 1:48:18 AM<b><br>
To:</b> </span><a href="mailto:sis-cfdpv1@mailman.ccsds.org"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">sis-cfdpv1@mailman.ccsds.org</span></a><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><br>
Subject:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Re: [SIS-CFDPV1] revised draft specification</span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">
<br>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Hi, Scott.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",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:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#0082BF">https://sanaregistry.org/r/checksum_identifiers</span></a><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">).</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> * short question : why are the number of the checksum ID in the SANA not consistently sequential? E.g., 4,5,<span style="color:red">(6?)</span>,7,<span style="color:red">(8?)</span>,9,10,11,12,13,14,<span style="color:red">6,8</span>,15.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Cheol</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><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"> SIS-CFDPV1 <</span><a href="mailto:sis-cfdpv1-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">sis-cfdpv1-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">>
<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> </span><a href="mailto:sis-cfdpv1@mailman.ccsds.org"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">sis-cfdpv1@mailman.ccsds.org</span></a><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><br>
Subject:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> [SIS-CFDPV1] revised draft specification</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">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:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0082BF">https://cwe.ccsds.org/sis/docs/SIS-CFDPV1/Draft%20Documents/727x0b5%20--%20Specification%20--%20Blue%20Book/727x0p42_working%204.doc?Web=1</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">;
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:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0082BF">https://cwe.ccsds.org/sis/docs/SIS-CFDPV1/Draft%20Documents/727x0b5%20--%20Specification%20--%20Blue%20Book/727x0p42_working%204.pdf</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">The end is in sight, I swear.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Scott</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:2.5in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><br>
_______________________________________________</span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><br>
SIS-CFDPV1 mailing list<u><span style="color:blue"><br>
</span></u></span><a href="mailto:SIS-CFDPV1@mailman.ccsds.org"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">SIS-CFDPV1@mailman.ccsds.org</span></a><u><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue"><br>
</span></u><a href="https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sis-cfdpv1"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sis-cfdpv1</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>