[Sis-dtn] SIS-DTN WG Status as of 20 July 2023

[Robert C Durst]

All,

 

Thank you to all who were able to participate in today's call - we got a lot
done!

 

In particular, we resolved comments received in response to the Working
Group last call on the LTP Corrigendum.  The participants in the call
believe that we have consensus on the approach to resolving the comments
received.  The final version, which will be submitted (immediately) to the
SIS Area Director with our request to publish, is here:
https://cwe.ccsds.org/sis/docs/SIS-DTN/Draft%20Documents/LTP%20Update%202021
/734x1b1_final_w_draft_corrigendum_2023_07_20_final.docx?d=wf3bc5a7e1ff44cdc
86f586c3d429ba44

 

We continued in our resolution of BPv7 RIDs.  Of the 102 total RIDs
received, we have resolved 68, leaving 34 remaining.  

Today we addressed RIDs captured in rows 25-36 of the spreadsheet, which is
fewer than I'd hoped, but several required substantial discussion. 

 

The RID on Row 36 bears particular mention.  It requests that there be an
item in the PICS section A5.5 for each subsection of section 5 in RFC 9171.
While we agree with that statement, we do not feel that it is sufficient.
In order to make informed decisions about the use of a particular
implementation, the PICS should indicate which "SHOULD" and "MAY" statements
have been implemented, in addition to the "SHALL" statements.  Indeed,
documenting implementation of the SHALL statements merely informs us about
compliance to the minimal requirements of the specification.  Information
about the optional elements of the specification guides the user on fitness
for purpose of a particular implementation.  While important, resolving this
RID to this level of detail may constitute a substantial amount of work. 

 

The current RID resolution spreadsheet is here:
https://cwe.ccsds.org/sis/docs/SIS-DTN/Draft%20Documents/BPv7%20for%20CCSDS/
Agency%20Review%20June%202023/Copy%20of%20BPv7%20Agency%20Review%20RIDS%2020
230720.xlsx?d=w3bf0735fab8240f09dcc5c06b4241725

 

I have not yet begun to incorporate RID resolutions into the word file that
went out for agency review.  (That's almost correct, I slipped up today and
removed a section that messed up numbering in section 3.3 - apologies.)

 

Again, thanks to all who have contributed, whether you were able to join
today or not.  I will not be able to join the call next week, but am hoping
that Tamer and/or Keith can help us make further progress in resolving
Felix's 6 remaining RIDs, Marc's 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sis-dtn/attachments/20230720/997df9b6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5084 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sis-dtn/attachments/20230720/997df9b6/attachment.bin>