[Css-csts] Framework - procedure-instance-identifier

[Yves.Doat at esa.int]

Dear Tim,

Than you for your comment.

I agree to update the requirement as proposed and to add a requirement such
that we have:
   “The value of the procedure-instance-identifier shall be the same for all
   operations used in the context of that procedure instance.”
   “The value of the procedure-instance-identifier shall represent the
   instance number of that procedure.”

Please let me know if those two requirements would solve the ambiguity you
detected.

Best regards
Yves


                                                                             
             "Ray, Timothy J.                                                
             (GSFC-5830)"                                                    
             <timothy.j.ray at nas                                           To 
             a.gov>                     "css-csts at mailman.ccsds.org"         
             Sent by:                   <css-csts at mailman.ccsds.org>         
             css-csts-bounces at m                                           cc 
             ailman.ccsds.org                                                
                                                                     Subject 
                                        [Css-csts] Framework -               
             30/07/2009 20:22           procedure-instance-identifier        
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             




Dear Working Group,

This email suggests some small changes to our Framework spec to make it
tighter.  In a nutshell, if the procedure-instance-number is 3, does that
indicate “the third instance of the specified procedure-type” or “the third
instance of any secondary procedure-type”?  Details follow…

Section 3.3.2.5.4 of the Framework spec (version 0.19) states that:
“The procedure instance number in the procedure-instance-identifier of the
secondary procedures shall be set to an incrementing number starting with 1.”

In my opinion, different implementers might interpret those words in
different ways.  Here are 2 examples – in each example it is assumed that
there are 2 instances each of 2 secondary procedures, and that their order of
existence is S1.1 (first instance of first secondary procedure) , S1.2
(second instance of the first secondary procedure), S2.1 (first instance of
the second secondary procedure), and S2.2 (second instance of the second
secondary procedure).

Example 1:
S1.1 always identifies itself as #1 (i.e. procedure-instance-number = 1).
S1.2 always identifies itself as #2.
S2.1 always identifies itself as #3 (this is the third instance of a
secondary procedure).
S2.2 always identifies itself as #4 (this is the fourth instance of a
secondary procedure).

Example 2:
S1.1 always identifies itself as #1.
S1.2 always identifies itself as #2.
S2.1 always identifies itself as #1 (this is the first instance of the given
procedure-type).
S2.2 always identifies itself as #2 (this is the second instance of the given
procedure-type).

I suggest that we add another sentence to 3.3.2.5.4 to clarify our
intentions.

Also, I suggest that we slightly modify the wording of 3.3.2.5.2:
From:
“The procedure-instance-identifier shall be *used* for all operations used in
the context of that procedure instance.”
To:
“The *value of the* procedure-instance-identifier shall be *the same* for all
operations used in the context of that procedure instance.”

Best regards,
Tim
 _______________________________________________
Css-csts mailing list
Css-csts at mailman.ccsds.org
http://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/css-csts