[Css-csts] RE: Version 2 procedures?

[John Pietras]

Yves,

First, I don't think that this is a critical issue whatever the final
decision is. But it is my understanding that the only versions that are
meaningful are the ones that are documented in approved Recommended
Standards (that is Blue Books). That is, once a book has become Blue,
all White Books, Red Books (and prototypes based on them) become cease
to have any standing.

 

 I realize that this was specifically *not* true in the case of the
first set of SLE implementations (which were based on Red Books that
couldn't be approved before they were needed to support INTEGRAL), but
as everyone knows that has been a point of trouble and confusion from
the beginning - the specifications of the versions of the SLE services
that were operationally implemented by ESA and DSN were only available
on the CCSDS web site during the Red Book review period, and disappeared
once RAF B-1 and F-CLTU B-1 were posted. Anyone wanting to build systems
compatible with the DSN implementations had to ask Michael Stoloff for
copies of his Red Books. But the SLE case should be the exception, not
the rule (in retrospect, CCSDS should have probably promoted the
INTEGRAL Red Books to be the first Blue Books under some "mission
critical" criteria, but that is a different conversation).

 

To me, allocating unique version numbers to Red Book versions of
procedures implies an intention to be able to use those Red Book
versions even after a Blue Book has been approved. Although that was the
case for the first SLE implementations, I don't believe that it is
anyone's intent to use a Red Book-based prototype in an operational
environment.  

 

Of course, this is just my opinion. I see that Erik has offered his
comments, and I believe that he and I are thinking along the same lines.
Was this procedure version renumbering discussed in London? I did a
search for "version" in both the Minutes of that meeting and your RID
resolutions and found no reference to version in this sense. 

 

As I said, these are my thoughts on the subject, and I don't think that
it is critical one way or the other. But I would be curious to hear what
the other members of the WG think. 

 

Best regards,

John

 

From: Yves.Doat at esa.int [mailto:Yves.Doat at esa.int] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 9:27 PM
To: John Pietras
Cc: css-csts at mailman.ccsds.org
Subject: 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/20110331/e6c88dcd/attachment.html