[Css-csts] RE: Action Item #01-0809

[Cyril THOMAS]

 Dear CSTSWG collegues,

I'm currently specifying the Monitored Data Service prototype for CNES and
one question came up while re-reading the Procedure definition
Recommendation : for the Unbuffered Data Delivery we specify
"This procedure can be used to accomplish the transfer of data from the
Service Provider to the Service User in a 'best effort' manner, i.e., data
are delivered as soon as generated if possible and are discarded
individually in case of communications link congestion"
In the case of data discarding for the UDD nothing is foreseen in the
specification to notify the User that data was discarded (in the case of the
buffered data delivery a notification is sent).
Is this behavior correct for the Unbuffered Data Delivery Procedure ?

Best Regards,
Cyril.


  -----Message d'origine-----
  De : css-csts-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org
[mailto:css-csts-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org]De la part de John Pietras
  Envoye : vendredi 2 octobre 2009 19:49
  A : css-csts at mailman.ccsds.org
  Objet : [Css-csts] RE: Action Item #01-0809


  CSTSWG collegues ---

  I received a note from Yves telling me that the attachment to my note
yesterday was missing. I had zipped the attachment to make sure that it was
small enough to be a mailing list attachment. It is my guess that the ESA
spam filter didn't like a zip file attachment and stripped it from Yves'
copy of the message. I have therefore posted a copy of the file to the CWE
at URL



  http://cwe.ccsds.org/css/docs/CSS-CSTS/CWE%20Private/CSTS%20Framework%20an
d%20Concept/RevisedPurposeAndScope-091001.doc



  (also http://tinyurl.com/RevisedPurposedAndScope)



  If you did not receive the original attachment, you can get it there.



  Best regards,

  John










----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--

  From: John Pietras
  Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 2:18 PM
  To: css-csts at mailman.ccsds.org
  Subject: Action Item #01-0809



  CSTSWG colleagues -

  In the August telecon, I took the action to "propose new text for section
1.1 and 1.2 of the Framework". That action was a result of my observations
that (a) the definition of service OIDs was, strictly speaking, outside the
scope of definition of the Framework procedures; and (b) that perhaps the
scope of the Framework *should* be expanded, in which the definition of the
service OIDs would be appropriate, and possibly the service states (and not
just procedure states) would be addressed in the Framework.



  However, we (the CSTSWG) did not really discuss whether we should actually
expand the scope of the Framework, or if os, in what ways. So my rewrite of
sections 1.1 and 1.2 (attached) really just addresses making those sections
correct with respect to what is currently in the Framework. For now, I think
it is an accurate statement of the purpose and scope of the current of the
Frame specification.



  My apologies for missing (by a day) the "September" due date for this
action.



  Best regards,

  John



  John Pietras

  GST, Inc.

  7855 Walker Drive, Suite 200

  Greenbelt, MD 20770

  240-542-1155


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/css-csts/attachments/20091014/3182e578/attachment.htm