[Fwd: [Sis-ams] AMS RID BNSC-46]

[Stuart Fowell]

I guess it depends upon how many cells there are. Ok, I can buy this
one.
 
 
Stuart D. Fowell BEng MBCS
Distributed, Real-Time Embedded (DRE) Consultant
SciSys UK Ltd
Clothier Road
Bristol
BS4 5SS
UK
 
Tel: +44 (0)117 971 7251
Mob: +44 (0)7715 750 255
Fax: +44 (0)119 971 1125
Email: stuart.fowell at scisys.co.uk
Website: www.scisys.co.uk <http://www.scisys.co.uk/> 
 
This message is private and confidential. If you have received this
message in error, please notify us and remove it from your system.  If
you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or
disclose this communication to others.  E-mail transmission cannot be
guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be
intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or
contain viruses. SciSys UK Limited therefore does not accept liability
for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise
as a result of e-mail transmission.  Whilst SciSys UK Limited  take
reasonable precautions to minimise risk, you must carry out your own
virus checks before opening attachments or reading e-mails and SciSys UK
Ltd does not accept liability for any damage or loss in this respect.
Contracts cannot be concluded with SciSys UK Limited by email.
 

________________________________

From: Scott Burleigh [mailto:Scott.Burleigh at jpl.nasa.gov] 
Sent: 05 December 2007 15:56
To: Stuart Fowell
Subject: [Fwd: [Sis-ams] AMS RID BNSC-46]




-------- Original Message -------- 
Subject: 	[Sis-ams] AMS RID BNSC-46	
Date: 	Wed, 17 Oct 2007 14:46:41 -0700	
From: 	Scott Burleigh <Scott.Burleigh at jpl.nasa.gov>
<mailto:Scott.Burleigh at jpl.nasa.gov> 	
To: 	<mailto:sis-ams at mailman.ccsds.org> 	


Our third residual RID is this one:


	Sending a separate "cell_spec" MPDU for each cell in the message
space should be optimised to sending a single MPDU that contains a list
of the registrars for the cells, i.e. concatenate the "cell_spec"s.
	

My proposed disposition is this:


	Not accepted.  The proposed change would complicate the protocol
by adding another MPDU format; currently, the cell_spec MPDU can be used
in both registrar registration and registrar location.  The reduction in
network traffic would be insignificant, and processing the cell_spec
MPDU would become appreciably more complex.
	

This is actually quite separate from the node registration protocol
changes that we hammered out during the meeting: registrar registration
is a procedure that occurs very rarely and will involve a tiny number of
message exchanges unless the message space is truly mammoth, which I
very much doubt will happen in an on-board environment.  I feel pretty
strongly that this is a false optimization, and I would really like to
set it aside.

Scott


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sis-ams/attachments/20071206/e8ba2873/attachment.htm