[Css-csts] tracking data recording buffer retention issues

[John Pietras]

CSTSWG colleagues ---
I have been making the final synchronizations between the TD-CSTS and the latest SFW. I believe that I have made almost all of the necessary adjustments, with the following exceptions.

The current TD-CSTS specifies that the following be established by Service Management:

a.       the size of the recording buffer;

b.      minimum period that the TDM Recording Buffer is required to retain the stored data before it is automatically purged; and

c.       overflow policy that shall be applied when new tracking data is available to be stored but the TDM Recording Buffer is full

The current TD-CSTS goes on to state that the parameter that specifies the size of the recording buffer (tdmRecordingBufferSize)is queriable.

The latest (and we hope final, at least for now) SFW specifies that that every CSTS that a "Functional Resource Type representing a recording buffer shall have a queriable recording-buffer-size parameter that specifies the storage capacity of the recording buffer" (CSTS SFW 4.5.7.9). However, the CSTS SFW is mute on the subject of how the recording buffer size is configured.

Also, the NOTE under 4.5.7.5 (a) states "The time span over which data is retained in the recording buffer, the policy for deleting data from the recording buffer, and the conditions under which the recording buffer begins to accept data following an overflow condition are outside the scope of this Recommended Standard. In general, service provider and service user will agree on a data custody transfer protocol."

Regarding the recording buffer size, I propose that we continue to have the TD-CSTS specify that tdmRecordingBufferSize is not only the parameter by which the buffer size is queried, but also the parameter by which is it configured.

Regarding the minimum retention period and overflow policy, the question that I have is whether stating that the minimum retention period and overflow policy are "established by Service Management" is consistent with the SFW's treatment of these topics, which says that it is outside the scope of the SFW, other than to say that that the service user and service provider will come to some agreement. Even though the TD-CSTS doesn't say how Service Management establishes them, our general concept has been that by saying something is handled by Service Management means that the CSSMWG is expected to establish some standard way for doing so. Are we okay with such an approach, or should we soften the wording even in the TD-CSTS to match the SFW approach, such that such decisions could even be made outside the scope of CCSDS-standardized Service Management?

If we have a few minutes to discuss this during this coming Thursday's telecon, I would appreciate it. I would like to be able to go into the Cleveland meeting with as clean and final a TD-CSTS as possible.

Thanks.

Best regards,
John

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/css-csts/attachments/20160229/dfac3f2f/attachment.html>