[Sis-dtn] Updates on LTPv2 Corrigendum and BPv7 RID database

[Keith Scott]

Mmmm.... will try to find the right words.

  -keith


On Wed, Jun 21, 2023, 10:48 AM <Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de> wrote:

> Hi Keith,
>
>
>
> Thank you for the summarized discussion on LTP-corrigendum.
>
> Just one consideration about SDA aggregation (point 7 in the list). The
> description seems to point about the fact that the current specification of
> the mechanism does not allow interoperability because of the lack of
> information of the client data unit, which is I think agreed and well
> understood. I’d however try to find a “smarter” way to say this, since
> having a specification which has a non-interoperable feature will not be
> accepted by CESG and this will cause endless iterations and discussions
> there before getting the green light.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Tomaso
>
>
>
> *Von:* SIS-DTN <sis-dtn-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> *Im Auftrag von *Keith
> Scott via SIS-DTN
> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 20. Juni 2023 18:35
> *An:* sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org
> *Betreff:* [Sis-dtn] Updates on LTPv2 Corrigendum and BPv7 RID database
>
>
>
> LTP Corrigendum (from the telecon last Thursday):
>
>    - Discussed the latest JPL collection of issues here (
>    https://cwe.ccsds.org/sis/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc={A52D5D6D-7A66-4CCD-AB61-B215AA2B8C36}&file=Draft%20LTP%20corrigendum%20-%20JPL%20edits%20(1).docx&action=default
>    <https://cwe.ccsds.org/sis/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=%7bA52D5D6D-7A66-4CCD-AB61-B215AA2B8C36%7d&file=Draft%20LTP%20corrigendum%20-%20JPL%20edits%20(1).docx&action=default>
>    )
>    - We definitely want a CORRIGENDUM (non-normative, no changes to the
>    protocol) NOT a set of Pink sheets or a Pink Book (which would/could be
>    normative and would require agency review).  So, all proposed text should
>    be in the form of non-normative suggestions to implementers.
>    - We discussed putting all of the proposed changes into a single
>    location or spreading them throughout the document.  The consensus was that
>    it would be better for implementers to put the suggestions proximate to the
>    places in the document that discuss the protocol mechanisms (i.e. mixed
>    throughout).  Should ask Tom what he thinks of this...
>    - Blue text in the document reflects the WG consensus on the telecon;
>    we agreed that folks would propose final "copy-ready" text in green
>    together with the location where that text should go.
>
>
>
> Added the CNES RIDs to the spreadsheet.
>
>
>
>     --keith
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sis-dtn/attachments/20230621/2cd0db15/attachment-0001.htm>