[Css-csts] RE: SII example and description of the service instance number

[John Pietras]

Wolfgang,
The “new” SII looks very good overall. A few minor comments:

1.       In the example under 3.4.2.2.7.7 NOTE 2, the bullet should be “CSTS Type” instead of [the old] “Transfer Service Profile Identifier”.

2.       Also, since we’ve adopted the convention of using the word “Provider” to designate the FR types associated with transfer services (both CSTS and SLE TS), I suggest showing the value of the CSTS Type component as “MD CSTS Provider”.

3.       3.4.2.2.7.8 states “The service instance number shall be identical to the instance number of the Functional Resource used for monitoring of the given service instance.”
I find the phrase at the end, “the Functional Resource used for monitoring of the given service instance”, potentially confusing. This could be interpreted as referring to an MD-CSTS instead of the identification of the CSTS itself (which may not necessarily be MD-CSTS). Furthermore, while someone familiar with FR Name composition, etc., understands what is being referred to by “instance n8mber”, the newer  reader/implementer may find it ambiguous. I’d like to suggest changing the sentence to read:
“The service instance number shall be identical to the Functional Resource Instance Number of the Functional Resource Name assigned to the service instance.”
This could be followed by a NOTE:
“The concatenation of the CSTS Type and service instance number are semantically equivalent to the Functional Resource Name of the CSTS instance.”,
but I leave it to you to decide whether this further clarification would helpful.


Best regards,
John


From: css-csts-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org [mailto:css-csts-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] On Behalf Of Wolfgang Hell
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 5:27 AM
To: CCSDS_CSTSWG (css-csts at mailman.ccsds.org)
Subject: [Css-csts] New version of the Framework document

Dear CSTS WG members,

this is to let you know that I have just uploaded the latest version of the SFW as a zipped file to the CWE at
Cross Support Services Area (CSS)<http://cwe.ccsds.org/css> > Documents<http://cwe.ccsds.org/css/docs/Forms/AllItems.aspx?View=%7B8045374D-F8E0-4356-83CA-993252A38FE8%7D> > CSS-CSTS<http://cwe.ccsds.org/css/docs/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=%2Fcss%2Fdocs%2FCSS%2DCSTS&View=%7B8045374D-F8E0-4356-83CA-993252A38FE8%7D> > CWE Private<http://cwe.ccsds.org/css/docs/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=%2Fcss%2Fdocs%2FCSS%2DCSTS%2FCWE%20Private&View=%7B8045374D-F8E0-4356-83CA-993252A38FE8%7D> > CSTS Framework and Concept

The most recent changes applied are those resulting from the discussion of how the Service Instance Identifier should be built and how to deal with the issue that the recording buffer was supposed to be in essence left unspecified while the BDD procedure in complete delivery mode had to make at least a few assumptions regarding the recording buffer characteristics.

Please note that the SII related updates not only affect the BIND operation, but given that the "attributes" OID subbranch is no longer needed, various updates had to be made to annex C and annex K. Furthermore the ASN.1 module specifying the ServiceInstanceIdentifier type had to be rewritten and is much simpler now.

The BDD procedure has been reworked such that it now contains a formal specification of the associated recording buffer type as needed by the BDD procedure. Derived procedures may have to specify a variant of the recording buffer which shall however as a minimum have the characteristics of the BDD recording buffer. Given that the recording buffer is a resource that may be shared by several CSTS instances, I have opted for modeling it as a Functional Resource as to have the means to refer to associated parameters and events. John would prefer to associate the parameters and events with the procedure. The pros and cons will be one of the topics discussed at the forthcoming webex session.

I shall prepare a brief presentation summarizing all updates implemented since the Pasadena meeting

Best regards,
Wolfgang

________________________________

Spam<https://filter.gst.com/canit/b.php?i=01OHlsNSz&m=70d405466e02&c=s>
Not spam<https://filter.gst.com/canit/b.php?i=01OHlsNSz&m=70d405466e02&c=n>
Forget previous vote<https://filter.gst.com/canit/b.php?i=01OHlsNSz&m=70d405466e02&c=f>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/css-csts/attachments/20150622/9248db5c/attachment.html>