[Css-csts] CSTS SFW Red-2 Review Outcome

Tue Nov 4 00:40:19 UTC 2014

Wolfgang, John and CSTS WG Members,
Please find below my input for a few of the RIDs.
Best regards,
David

David Zoller
COLSA Corporation
MSFC/HOSC - C107
*Office: (256) 544-1820
*EMail: david.a.zoller at nasa.gov<mailto:david.a.zoller at nasa.gov>

RID: JVP-21

PAGE NUMBER: 4-66                  PARAGRAPH NUMBER: 4.8.4.2.2

RID SHORT TITLE:  Sequence-Controlled DP PROCESS-DATA extension syntax

·         Section 1.6.1.4.19 states that changing an unconfirmed operation to a confirmed operation is indeed an extension.

·         I prefer the consistency of using some variant of data-unit-id as is done in the other SCDPP extensions. The usage of the data-unit-id as a true sequence counter is inherent in the fact that these are SCDPP extensions and does not need to be spelled out with a name change which can cause confusion.

o   Suggested parameter name:  next-data-unit-id

§  The EXECUTE-DIRECTIVE text (4.8.4.4.2.2) mentions data-unit-id while the ASN.1 calls it a NextDataUnitId - maybe change the text to refer to next-data-unit-id also

§  The E-D extension and the P-D Return extensions all refer to the next data-unit-id that the provider should/will accept

·         ** This also applies to RID 02 David Zoller/ Tom Wickline

RID: JVP-27

PAGE NUMBER: E-7, E-10                  PARAGRAPH NUMBER: E3.3
RID SHORT TITLE: Merge Diagnostics Type into Standard Return Header and Fix "Diagnostic" Parameter Name

·         In the proposed change, I think diagnosticsExtension should be diagnosticExtension

·         I have the source code for the Data Processing Procedure Provider prototype going through the export approval process and hope to be able upload it soon. There would be changes required but I expected some anyway and have enough experience now with ASN.1 updates that it wouldn't be too much effort on my end.

RID: JVP-28

PARAGRAPH NUMBER: E3.4, E3.5, E3.6, E3.7, E3.10, E3.12, E3.13, E3.14
RID SHORT TITLE: Incorrect Identification of Diagnostics Extension Points in ASN.1

·         To be consistent with the change to "diagnostic", I think the extension names should also drop the plural and use "DiagnosticExt"

RID: JVP-38

PAGE NUMBER: E-27, E-28              PARAGRAPH NUMBER: E3.8
RID SHORT TITLE:  Extension Specifications for Data Processing PDUs

·         Items 7 and 8: I think that you might be able to just delete the comment about dataProcessingStatus and its extension.

o   dataProcessingStatusExtension provides a means for extension just like dataProcNotifyInvocExtExtension and others which do not normally get called out as being set to 'notUsed' when defining their base type. When the base type is extended or refined then the extension parameter is specified as not used if appropriate as seen in the dispositiion of RID JVP-39.

RID: JVP-40

PAGE NUMBER: E-32, E-33, E-34              PARAGRAPH NUMBER: E3.10

RID SHORT TITLE:  Extension Specifications for Sequence-Controlled Data Processing PDUs

·         Item 1: This comment is the only reference to first-data-sequence-counter. The actual ASN.1 parameter is firstDataUnitId and the text (4.8.3.1.1) references first-data-unit-id. The comment should be changed to first-data-unit-id.

From: css-csts-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org [mailto:css-csts-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] On Behalf Of Wolfgang Hell
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 5:34 AM
To: CCSDS_CSTSWG (css-csts at mailman.ccsds.org)
Subject: [Css-csts] CSTS SFW Red-2 Review Outcome

John and CSTS WG Members,

many thanks to John for his very thorough review of the SFW document. Unfortunately the time that John can spend with the CSTS WG at the meetings is always quite limited. Therefore I'm trying to speed up the RID discussion and have (pre-)processed all the RIDs plus two emails from John proposing further updates of the SFW. In this way John might have a chance to check if my implementation of his RIDs is acceptable to him.

I have taken the liberty to use John's original RID submission document to capture all dispositions that I am proposing. Please see this document attached. Please note that the dispositions as shown in that document are exclusively based on my personal opinion and not coordinated in any way with other CSTS WG members. My general impression is however that we are in good shape and that none of the identified defects and their correction will require to go for Red-3 rather than Blue-1.

Given that, I also went ahead with the update of the SFW proper in accordance with the documented RID disposition proposals. I have uploaded it to Cross Support Services Area (CSS)<http://cwe.ccsds.org/css> > Documents<http://cwe.ccsds.org/css/docs/Forms/AllItems.aspx> > CSS-CSTS<http://cwe.ccsds.org/css/docs/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=%2Fcss%2Fdocs%2FCSS%2DCSTS> > CWE Private<http://cwe.ccsds.org/css/docs/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=%2Fcss%2Fdocs%2FCSS%2DCSTS%2FCWE%20Private> > CSTS Framework and Concept<http://cwe.ccsds.org/css/docs/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=%2Fcss%2Fdocs%2FCSS%2DCSTS%2FCWE%20Private%2FCSTS%20Framework%20and%20Concept> and the name of the document is 921x1r2_final WH 20141009.

Best regards,
Wolfgang
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/css-csts/attachments/20141104/43fc991a/attachment.html>