[Css-csts] Re: Version 2 procedures?

[Barkley, Erik J (317H)]

Please read "produced" for "reduced".

From: Barkley, Erik J (317H)
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 9:04 PM
To: 'Yves.Doat at esa.int'; John Pietras
Cc: css-csts at mailman.ccsds.org
Subject: RE: [Css-csts] Re: Version 2 procedures?

Dear Yves,

>From a strict versioning control approach what you have suggested makes a lot of sense. But from the perspective of someone taking a CCSDS recommendation and implementing it the fact that there is a mix of version numbers for freshly reduced blue books I think is a bit odd, and may have some (albeit minor) potential for confusing the reader. I will admit that I'm not conversant with the fine details of the version numbers with respect to the various procedures in the framework, but from the perspective of the schema management that occurred for the service management working group, had we just strictly incremented the version number we would've had a situation on the order of the schema version identified as something like version 58 because of all the previous revisions during prototyping etc.  The SMWG did indeed increment controlled version numbers but the major revision number for all schemas prior to Blue-1 was "0" (for example version 0.58 prior to first formal blue book publication in this case).    The official version of the schema then with release of the blue book was 1.0 (Technically it's 1.0.0 as there is a hierarchy of significance for changes to allow for some very minor changes to be tracked with the last digit.)  Obviously we do not have a clear-cut practice within CCSDS for version controls etc. but it seems to me that it would be easier to keep everything sorted out if version numbers of protocols etc. kept pace with the notion of blue book releases within CCSDS. Presumably SANA will eventually help sort this out but I don't think there's any harm in helping to sort out SANA.

In any case I realize this is all somewhat arbitrary, but, for your consideration, the notion of protocol identifiers/version numbers being in sync with the blue books has some appeal for me.

Best regards,

-Erik

From: css-csts-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org [mailto:css-csts-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] On Behalf Of Yves.Doat at esa.int
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 6:27 PM
To: John Pietras
Cc: css-csts at mailman.ccsds.org
Subject: [Css-csts] Re: Version 2 procedures?

Dear John,

In my view, the procedure should get the version 2 in the blue book as version 1 was in the red book and was already used. I do not see a particular reason to link the version 1 to the blue book.
In case I forget to change some of them I will cross check.
If you consider that it's a problem, please let me know.
Best regards
Yves

"John Pietras" <john.pietras at gst.com>

30/03/2011 22:37

To

<Yves.Doat at esa.int>

cc

<css-csts at mailman.ccsds.org>

Subject

Version 2 procedures?







Yves,
In the December draft of the CSTS FW, the Association Control, Information Query, Buffered Data Delivery, Unbuffered Data Delivery, Throw Event, and Notification procedures have had their version numbers changed to 2, but not Cyclic Report and Data Processing remain at procedure version number 1. Why were those version numbers changed to 2? How would it be possible that the first version of a Blue Book would have anything other than the first versions of the procedures that are specified by that Blue Book?

Best regards,
John
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/css-csts/attachments/20110330/be08836b/attachment-0001.htm