<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 20px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">
<div>Dear SLP WG member,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I have attached to this email as well as placed on the SLP CWE the latest clean version of the USLP White Book as well as my last redline version (showing track changes).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>These files are:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>1) USLP Space Data Link Protocol_April_26_clean</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>2) USLP Space Data Link Protocol_April_14_redlines</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Both are also on the CWE under the URL:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><b><a href="http://tinyurl.com/jf9j6u3">http://tinyurl.com/jf9j6u3</a></b>
<div id="success"></div>
</div>
<div><b><br>
</b></div>
<div>The following SLP WG members held a telecon concerning the remaining open issues this morning. (There were: Victor Sank, Ed Greenberg, Greg Kazz, Gilles Moury, Tomaso deCola, Stefan Veit, Lee Pitts, Kevan Moore). We resolved the following issues:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<ol>
<li>The Transfer Frame is indeed the Protocol Data Unit (PDU) of the data link sublayer. This is stated in Section 2.1.1 Architecture.</li><li>Instead of using the VC_<span style="font-style: italic;">OCF </span>service<span style="font-style: italic;">,
</span>we shall use the<span style="font-style: italic;"> </span>MC_OCF service. There is one MC_OCF service but all the signals come from the VCs. Any of the applicable VCs can delivery the OCF_<span style="font-style: italic;">SDU
</span>to the <span style="font-style: italic;">MC</span>_OCF service. The applicable virtual channels are supplying their OCF_<span style="font-style: italic;">SDU to the MC</span>_OCF service. </li><li>VCID = 63 becomes the universal OID frame for all USLP space links. </li><li>We had some discussion on CLCW Reporting Rate, which is currently defined as a VC managed parameter. Ed Greenberg suggested we remove this parameter because it is a COP-1 issue and not a USLP issue. For example, impossible to specify if one doesn’t know
the uplink rate a priori . Gilles suggested to keep it there but define what kind of value it is: Is it the maxiumum number of transfer frames between 2 sequential CLCW reportings or does it represent a duration in msec ? So we have no resolution with this
parameter yet. </li><li>Plan is to update the Draft USLP white book with these results and ask the WG to review this new draft USLP White book dated April 26. Provide the SLP WG with two weeks to review along with the last track change version available for comparison. Thereafter,
I will poll the SLP WG by email to see if they consider this book to be in reasonable shape to ask the AD to publish it as a RED-1 version before the Rome meeting. We assume the CCSDS Secretariat will have time to turn it around and issue a RED-1 in time for
a proper agency review before the Rome meeting in the middle of Oct. 2016.</li></ol>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks to all who attended this telecon and for their support !</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best regards,</div>
<div>Greg</div>
</body>
</html>