<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)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Gulim;
panose-1:2 11 6 0 0 1 1 1 1 1;}
@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;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Malgun Gothic";
panose-1:2 11 5 3 2 0 0 2 0 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@Malgun Gothic";}
@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",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:KO;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
.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;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Yup, the more changes we make to the spec, the more we need to test. Happily, I believe we¡¯re done now.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;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;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">On (1), yes, if we were starting from scratch I would definitely reorganize along the lines you propose. But since we have already got interoperability
test results that reference the original test plan organization, I would rather leave it as is. Reorganizing would take some work and I don¡¯t think it would make anything clearer to the reader.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;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;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">On (2), good point, I¡¯ll be sure to make a note of the checksum algorithm that was used for those tests. I don¡¯t think we need to mandate any specific
algorithm for these tests, since it doesn¡¯t bear on the behavior we¡¯re testing, but the checksum algorithm does have to be something that both the sender and receiver support.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;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;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">On (3), as I was reading the test plan I wondered if ¡®1011¡¯ might be misunderstood by somebody who hadn¡¯t read the specification quite closely.
Written this way, it would be easy to think that the condition code was one thousand eleven (decimal, the default when there¡¯s no notational cue) rather than binary 1011 (decimal 11). Since the code of any implementation is going to test for the integer value
11, I think that¡¯s the least ambiguous way to document the test. I changed condition code 0100 to 4 in one of the earlier tests for the same reason.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;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;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;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">
</span><span lang="KO" style="font-size:11.0pt">±¸Ã¶È¸</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> <chkoo@kari.re.kr>
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, March 4, 2020 4:42 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B) <scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov><br>
<b>Cc:</b> sis-cfdpv1@mailman.ccsds.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [EXTERNAL] RE: final (I hope) test plan document<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="word-break:break-all"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Malgun Gothic",sans-serif">Hi, Scott.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="word-break:break-all"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Malgun Gothic",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="word-break:break-all"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Malgun Gothic",sans-serif">It seems the Test Plan document is getting complex as the CFDP specification is getting revised.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="word-break:break-all"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Malgun Gothic",sans-serif">Please find my comments as follow:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="word-break:break-all"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Malgun Gothic",sans-serif"> 1) as the CFDP specification is revised, especially checksum handling perspective, now 3.1 (checksum types) can be merged with 3.6 (mandatory
checksum algorithms) because these section are mentioning the validation of checksum algorithm implementations. My suggestion is to remove 3.1, and to add CRC test case in 3.6.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:6.75pt;word-break:break-all"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Malgun Gothic",sans-serif">2) as now CFDP specification allows checksum type selection when a transaction starts rather than getting one from MIB,
3.2 (closure requests) has to define a default checksum type, e.g. modular, for conducting following test cases.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:6.75pt;word-break:break-all"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Malgun Gothic",sans-serif">3) the condition code for 3.7.2 shall be
<span lang="KO">¡®</span>1011<span lang="KO">¡¯</span> rather than <span lang="KO">
¡®</span>11<span lang="KO">¡¯</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="word-break:break-all"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Malgun Gothic",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="word-break:break-all"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Malgun Gothic",sans-serif">That<span lang="KO">¡¯</span>s all what I got here now after a very short review. I will get back to here when I get more.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="word-break:break-all"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Malgun Gothic",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="word-break:break-all"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Malgun Gothic",sans-serif">Best,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="word-break:break-all"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Malgun Gothic",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="word-break:break-all"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Malgun Gothic",sans-serif">Cheol<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="word-break:break-all"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Malgun Gothic",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="word-break:break-all"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Malgun Gothic",sans-serif"><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 <<a href="mailto:sis-cfdpv1-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org">sis-cfdpv1-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org</a>>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B) via SIS-CFDPV1<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, March 5, 2020 7:58 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:sis-cfdpv1@mailman.ccsds.org">sis-cfdpv1@mailman.ccsds.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [SIS-CFDPV1] final (I hope) test plan document<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Hi. I just now posted to CWE a new Test Plan document for the CFDP Revisions that I believe is final. Over the next couple of days
I will be plugging interoperability testing results into that Plan to turn it into a Report, which I hope to send to Tom Gannett very soon.<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>
</div>
</body>
</html>