[Css-csts] RE: deprecated production-status parameter?

Sat Sep 8 10:10:35 EDT 2012

Dear John,

I changed the title of section C6.2 as proposed.

Regarding Service Production definition I would propose:
"The service production status is the status of the service during
implementation of its functionality."

Please let me know if you agree or if you would have an alternative
definition?

Best regards
Yves

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

  To:         <Yves.Doat at esa.int>                                                                                                  

  Cc:         css-csts at mailman.ccsds.org                                                                                           

  Date:       21/08/2012 14:57                                                                                                     

  Subject:    [Css-csts] RE: deprecated production-status parameter?                                                               

  Sent by:    css-csts-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org                                                                                   

Yves,
I agree with your proposal, with one additional proposal – that production
status have initial caps (Production Status) to indicate its “special term”
status. We have used this approach elsewhere in the CSTS SF (some cases that
come immediately to mind are Transfer Buffer and Release Timer). (Perhaps it
would also be useful to add it to the Additional Definitions in
section1.6.1.4.)

Best regards,
John

Ps – I believe that the title of section C6.2 should be “Agencies
Functionalities” , not “Agencies Functionalities Agreement”

From: Yves.Doat at esa.int [mailto:Yves.Doat at esa.int]
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 4:10 AM
To: John Pietras
Cc: css-csts at mailman.ccsds.org
Subject: RE: deprecated production-status parameter?

Dear John,
You are right, in the Return Framework, the parameter "production-status" doe
not exist in the ASN.1. Considering that the forward procedures are coming
and will re-introduce the parameter, I would appreciate to limit the impact
in the book.

I therefore propose to change the font from "identifier" to "normal"
throughout the document. Having changed the font implies that the parameter
"production-status" referred in the document is not defined in ASN.1.
The events related to the various values of the production status:
productionConfigured, productionInterrupted, productionHalted and
productionOperational remain valid and are still defined in sections
3.10.2.2.3 (NOTIFY operation) and in C7 (Object Identifiers of the events).

Please let me know if you would agree to this minimum change.

Best regards
Yves

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

 To:          <Yves.Doat at esa.int>                                            

 Cc:          <css-csts at mailman.ccsds.org>                                   

 Date:        08/08/2012 16:08                                               

 Subject:     RE: deprecated production-status parameter?                    

Yves,
My comment about the embedded note “2012 not valid anymore” applied to the
June draft of the CSTS FW – it (and the associated ASN.1 ProductionStatus
type definition) have been deleted from the July version. However, my
comments about references to the production-status parameter throughout the
book are still valid.

Best regards,
John

From: John Pietras
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 4:58 PM
To: Yves.Doat at esa.int
Cc: CCSDS_CSTSWG (css-csts at mailman.ccsds.org)
Subject: deprecated production-status parameter?

Yves,
There are a number of citations of and references to the production-status
parameter, where “production-status” has the courier font that indicates that
it is a formal parameter of the Framework. For example, section 2.2.10.2
states:
“The status of the service production resource is reported by means of the
production-status parameter and is made available to all service instances
accessing the same production resource.  The CSTS Specification Framework
defines the permissible values of production-status and the transitions
between these values in abstract terms; these values may be refined by
service specifications based on the Framework.  Service specifications may
also define substates for one or more of the production-status values where
appropriate.”

However, when I went and actually looked for productionStatus in the ASN.1, I
found that D3.3, Cross Support Transfer Service —COMMON TYPES, exports
ProductionStatus but that the type itself now has the annotation “201206 Not
valid anymore”.

If indeed production-status is now not a formal parameter type then I think
it should be cleaned up in the Framework to remove those statemetns that say
that it is. However, I don’t thinkn that it is important enough to delay
Red-2 publication just for that. This comment can be treated as the first RID
against Red-2.

Best regards,
John

John Pietras
GST, Inc.
7855 Walker Drive, Suite 200
Greenbelt, MD 20770
240-542-1155

This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee or
addressees only. The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying
(either in whole or in part) of its content is not permitted. If you received
this message in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your
system. Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the
sender.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.
_______________________________________________
Css-csts mailing list
Css-csts at mailman.ccsds.org
http://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/css-csts

This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee or addressees only. The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in whole or in part) of its content is not permitted. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the sender.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.