Re (corrected): [Sis-csi] Green book thoughts

[James L. Rash]

Scott,

I corrected a typo ("usual" should have been "unusual" in item (a) in 
the text) -- sorry.

Jim


At 6:06 PM -0700 4/19/06, Scott Burleigh wrote:
><mailto:Lee.Neitzel at EmersonProcess.com>Lee.Neitzel at EmersonProcess.com wrote:
>
>>RE: [Sis-csi] Green book thoughts
>>
>>As you know, there are significant fixed and variable costs 
>>associated with design, implementation, testing, and deployment of 
>>each layer protocol.
>>
>In my mind, this is the key point in this discussion.
>
>....
>
>So in this architecture document I think we want *not* to encourage 
>every flight software manager to look at each mission as yet another 
>opportunity to demonstrate what fools the designers of TCP were. 
>The architecture needs to support the insertion of alternatives to 
>TCP where they are needed, but the fewer the better.  Suppose we 
>leave it at that?

Scott,

If I understand what you have been saying, it boils down to the 
following.  We as architects should aim towards saving the mission 
community from making costly and/or dumb choices about rolling their 
own re-transmission protocols.  We should accomplish this by (a) 
developing/adopting a small set of re-transmission protocols that 
will meet all-but-the-most-unusual-mission-needs for the future and 
(b) disallow future missions from using any other re-transmission 
protocols over the infrastructure we are "architecting".

My apologies if I have misinterpreted your thesis, and I am happy to 
be corrected.

-- 

James L. Rash
Building 23, Room E403
Code 588 -- Advanced Architectures and Automation Branch
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Greenbelt, MD  20771
301-286-5246 (voice)     301-286-1768 (fax)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sis-csi/attachments/20060420/cbc05591/attachment-0001.htm