[Sis-ams] revised AMS concept paper

[Stuart Fowell]

Hi Scott,

Sorry I've been quiet recently, project pressures unfortunately.
During a sick day yesterday (yes this is sad I know) I finally found
time to read the concept paper.
I think you've done a very good job and I only have a couple of minor
comments (from the perspective of SOIS and MTS):

1. From the on-board perspective, determining Worst Case Delivery Times
would be necessary. Clearly this must be dependant upon the underlying
communications protocols, buses etc, but AMS/MTS should not preclude
this from being calculated.

2. I'm not sure if just 3 levels of priority is sufficient for on-board
software. Perhaps this is more relevant to users of AMS/MTS in queuing
events for dispatching.

3. These levels of priority should be respected at each stage in the
delivery mechanism, e.g. where-ever any resource contention or buffering
occurs. Should be high priority before low priority, FIFO within a
priority level based on received time (as opposed to original send time
- which would necessitate access to a global time).

4. Page 3, message notifications. Please clarify if "delivery success"
means receiving user has read message or that it is queued ready for
user to receive.

5. For acceptance in the on-board software community we would need to
work up an example deployment on a minimal system to demonstrate roughly
the resources required (CPU, tasks, memory etc) and fault handling.

Regards,

Stuart

-----Original Message-----
From: sis-ams-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org
[mailto:sis-ams-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] On Behalf Of Scott Burleigh
Sent: 14 June 2005 17:42
To: sis-ams at mailman.ccsds.org
Subject: [Sis-ams] revised AMS concept paper

Hi, AMS enthusiasts.  As you may recall, at the April CCSDS meetings in
Athens it was resolved that representatives from the SOIS TCOAS working
group, the MOIMS SMC working group, and the SIS AMS BOF should explore
the possibilities for aligning the work on message exchange that was
being done for SMCP, MTS, and AMS.  The final report of that study, a
CCSDS concept paper, has been submitted to CESG, and this morning I also
posted it to the AMS CWE on the CCSDS web site
(http://public.ccsds.org/sites/cwe/sis-ams).  I have also revised the
strawman AMS specification (which I've been calling a concept paper even
though, technically, I expect it's not in the right format) in accord
with the recommendations in that study, and this revised spec is also
now posted to the AMS CWE.

Strictly speaking, we're not supposed to be working on document
development within a BOF.  I would be glad to hear comments all the
same, and meanwhile we need more specifically to be pressing ahead with
the proposal to form an AMS Working Group where this sort of discussion
really should be taking place.  In aid of the latter, does anyone have
any thoughts on the Requirements document and the proposed Charter and
Plan that I posted to the CWE shortly before the April meetings?

Scott


_______________________________________________
Sis-ams mailing list
Sis-ams at mailman.ccsds.org
http://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sis-ams