[Css-csts] Action Item #02-0511S: Annex E with simplified service state tables

[John Pietras]

CSTSWG colleagues ---

At the Berlin meeting, I was assigned action item #02-0511S: "JP to
provide the revised version of Annex E, describing the approach for
flagging the active state of started and acknowledged Prime Procedure to
the Association Control Procedure."

 Actually, this action item is slightly misstated. In response to action
item #06-1010F, I had devised an approach that eliminated the need to
distinguish between state machines of CSTSes with stateful prime
procedure instances that are stateful because they employ START and STOP
operations vs. being stateful because they use a three-phased
(acknowledged) operation.  The technical note describing that approach
explained the changes needed in the state tables for the Association
Control procedure and the stateful procedures in the CSTSFW. The
technical note also identified the changes in the state tables of Annex
E (Service State Tables) but did not identify all changes in Annex E
(that is, the changes in the text of Annex E). Action item 02-0511S was
to provide the complete update to Annex E.

 

The resulting update to Annex E has been uploaded to the CCSDS CSTSWG
CWE Red-1 Framework Review May.2011 folder at URL

http://cwe.ccsds.org/css/docs/CSS-CSTS/CWE%20Private/CSTS%20Framework%20
and%20Concept/Red-1%20Framework%20Review%20May.2011/SimplifiedStatefulAn
nexE.zip

 

The zip file contains two documents. The Word document "921x1r2[Draft
201012]-stateful-110601.doc" is a marked-up version of the December 2010
Red book with Annex E updated. The PDF file "921x1r2[Draft
201012]-Annex_E-clean.pdf" is a final printing of Annex E with all
changes accepted.

 

I believe that the revised Annex E is complete, with one exception: the
state tables for the stateless and stateful services use the incoming
event 'not authenticated PDU', the reference for which is given as
section 3.2.3.6. I believe that the definition of this event and the
composition of 3.2.3.6 may have been altered based on our discussions of
valid/invalid PDUs and how and when they are detected. The final
agreed-to rewording of those sections need to be examined and the
reference of the 'not authenticated PDU' incoming events adjusted
accordingly. In any case, the reference to that event needs to be made
more complete - currently it just displays "a)".

 

Best regards,

John

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/css-csts/attachments/20110601/ee93d6bf/attachment.html