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

[sburleig.sb at gmail.com]

Right, I think it’s not that the specification is not interoperable, only that the nature of the client data units – including the information needed to delimit the aggregated data units in the SDA structure – is identified by the client ID; that registration is beyond the scope of the specification.

 

Scott

 

From: SIS-DTN <sis-dtn-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> On Behalf Of Keith Scott via SIS-DTN
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2023 2:36 AM
To: Tomaso de Cola <Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de>
Cc: sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org
Subject: Re: [Sis-dtn] Updates on LTPv2 Corrigendum and BPv7 RID database

 

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

 

  -keith

 

 

On Wed, Jun 21, 2023, 10:48 AM <Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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} <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> &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/d3a00a1a/attachment.htm>