[Sis-ams] comments on our spec

[Ray, Timothy J. (GSFC-583.0)]

Dear WG members,

 

Here are some minor questions/comments on our specification:

 

3.1.10.2 -- Application_data is shown as optional.  Is it really
optional?  (Is the idea to enable 'no-op' messages?)

 

3.1.11.2 -- ditto

 

3.1.13.2 -- ditto

 

5.1.5.14  -- Inconsistency between text and picture.  Is it role-number
followed by node-number or vice-versa?

 

5.1.5.18 - The second field in the diagram is labelled 'MAMS endpoint
name' but the structure below the label appears to be a
delivery-point-name.  I think the label is correct and the diagram needs
to be changed.  If my understanding is correct, a MAMS-endpoint-name
does not explicitly specifiy the transport service (e.g. udp) because
all AMS entities have agreed in advance on a particular transport
service, while a delivery-point-name explicitly specifies the transport
service (e.g. tcp or udp or ...).

 

5.1.1.2 - (I'm not familiar with time code formats, but I think this
comment is correct)    Table 5-1 shows the MPDU header format.  It
includes CUC Time.  If we haven't done so already, I suggest that we
explicitly state whether or not the 'preamble' portion of CUC is
included.  Otherwise, the reader of an MPDU will not be able to
determine (with certainty) whether or not a preamble is present.

 

5.1.3.3 -- Heartbeat Source.  The meaning of the phrase "node's number"
is unclear to me.  I think the intention is for this to mean "node-id"
(a 4-byte number that factors in a node's unit, number, and role) rather
than the "node number" (a 1-byte number) by which the node is identified
within its cell.

 

Tim

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sis-ams/attachments/20080702/2faa185a/attachment.html