[Sis-ams] scope of interoperability testing

[Donahue, Pat]

I would have to "re-think my thinking" (and likely throw away a lot of
code) to try to make my code work without MAMS.
 

Patrick Donahue
(256) 544-5943 office
(256) 721-0726 home
(256) 682-9753 cell 

 


________________________________

	From: sis-ams-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org
[mailto:sis-ams-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] On Behalf Of Scott Burleigh
	Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 12:19 PM
	To: sis-ams at mailman.ccsds.org
	Subject: Re: [Sis-ams] scope of interoperability testing
	
	
	Ray, Timothy J. (GSFC-583.0) wrote: 

		Hello all,

		 

		Assuming that the scope of our interoperability testing
is still an open topic, may I present a possible approach that is
similar to what was used for CFDP?   (By the way, do we plan to test the
Remote AMS protocol?)

		 

		Test series A1:  

		*	Basic message exchange (SEND, QUERY, REPLY, and
RECEIVE). 
		*	Each implementer provides a single AMS node. 
		*	Static MIB contents (IP-address and UDP port
number for each implementation). 
		*	Each implemention initiates a few SENDs and
QUERYs with each of the other implementations. 

		 

		Test series A2:

		*	Adds the Meta-AMS protocol to series A1. 
		*	(Details TBD) 

		 

		Test series A3:

		*	Adds multi-point message distribution (PUBLISH
and ANNOUNCE) to series A2. 
		*	(Details TBD) 

		 

		Test series A4:   (if needed)

		*	Tests the Remote AMS protocol. 
		*	(Details TBD) 

	I like the incremental approach, Tim, but this plan would
present a small problem for me: in the absence of Meta-AMS in test
series A1 I would have to develop an additional static-configuration
capability for my implementation, which it otherwise doesn't require and
wouldn't use.
	
	But maybe this isn't as much work as I'm imagining it could be;
I need to give this some thought.
	
	Scott
	

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sis-ams/attachments/20080509/008a7372/attachment.html