[Sls-sea-dls] RE: SDLS BB : proposal for PS comments dispositions
Daniel.Fischer at esa.int
Daniel.Fischer at esa.int
Mon Aug 24 08:15:10 UTC 2015
Dear all,
The BB will be revised only after 5 years once it has been published.
Thus, putting a statement like "Implementation of the services necessary
to manage the parameters contained in the SA data base is a
mission-specific function. Service directives for managing the SA
parameters in-line will be specified in a CCSDS recommendation currently
under development (355.1-B: SDLS Extended Procedures)." seems a bit odd. I
would formulate it more "timeless".
Maybe something like "Implementation of the services necessary to manage
the parameters contained in the SA data base is a mission-specific
function. Service directives for managing the SA parameters in-line are
specified in the SDLS Extended Procedures CCSDS recommendation (reference
355.1-B: SDLS Extended Procedures). At the time of publication of this
document, the Extended Procedures book is still under development ."
Furthermore, I agree with Ignacios statement regarding Section 6.1.
Unspecified ins better. It may also be worth to add a reference to Section
3.4.1.
Cheers,
Daniel
Dr. Daniel Fischer
----------------------------
Data Systems Manager
Ground Systems Engineering Support Office
Ground Systems Engineering Department
Directorate of Human Spaceflight and Operations
European Space Agency - ESOC
Robert-Bosch-Str. 5
D-64293 Darmstadt - Germany
Tel: +49 (0) 6151 90 2718 - Fax: +49 (0) 6151 90 2718
Web: http://www.esa.int
From: Ignacio Aguilar Sanchez/estec/ESA
To: "Biggerstaff, Craig (JSC-CD221)[LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP]"
<craig.biggerstaff at nasa.gov>,
Cc: "Daniel.Fischer at esa.int" <Daniel.Fischer at esa.int>, "Moury Gilles"
<Gilles.Moury at cnes.fr>, "howie.weiss at sparta.com" <howie.weiss at sparta.com>,
"sls-sea-dls at mailman.ccsds.org" <sls-sea-dls at mailman.ccsds.org>
Date: 24/08/2015 10:00
Subject: Re: [Sls-sea-dls] RE: SDLS BB : proposal for PS comments
dispositions
Dear Craig et al,
The proposed update as well as the responses to Peter's comments are
almost fine with me.
My only problem is adding the word 'unspecified' before 'management' in
section 6.1. This language is not consistent with the language used with
the TC, TM and AOS BBs.
We have attempted to harmonise the four standards to the best of our
ability. Either we state everywhere that the management is not specified
or we do not. And we do it in the same way.
To be clear, each of the four standards contains a statement in section
1.2 where the absence of specification for the management activities is
stated.
The word 'unspecified' does not show up a single time in TC, TM and AOS
BBs.
In order to avoid additional modifications on TC, TM and AOS BBs to
achieve full consistency with this topic, I would propose to remove the
word 'unspecified'.
Kind regards,
Ignacio
From: "Biggerstaff, Craig (JSC-CD221)[LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP]"
<craig.biggerstaff at nasa.gov>
To: "Moury Gilles" <Gilles.Moury at cnes.fr>,
"Ignacio.Aguilar.Sanchez at esa.int" <Ignacio.Aguilar.Sanchez at esa.int>,
"Daniel.Fischer at esa.int" <Daniel.Fischer at esa.int>,
"howie.weiss at sparta.com" <howie.weiss at sparta.com>
Cc: "sls-sea-dls at mailman.ccsds.org" <sls-sea-dls at mailman.ccsds.org>
Date: 21/08/2015 22:55
Subject: [Sls-sea-dls] RE: SDLS BB : proposal for PS comments
dispositions
Sent by: sls-sea-dls-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org
Dear WG members,
Gilles, thank you for adding in the proposed dispositions for Peter
Shames.
I have added the NOTE to section 1.1 to answer Tomaso de Cola?s and Keith
Scott?s conditions, updated figures 2-4,5-1,5-2,5-3, and made one or two
minor alterations to the proposed language to avoid an implicit dependency
of 355.0 upon 355.1. If these changes meet with the WG?s satisfaction, I
will forward them to Peter for his review and cc Tom Gannett per the
conditional approval procedures.
Best regards,
Craig
From: Moury Gilles [mailto:Gilles.Moury at cnes.fr]
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2015 11:07 AM
To: Biggerstaff, Craig (JSC-CD221)[LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP];
Ignacio.Aguilar.Sanchez at esa.int; Daniel.Fischer at esa.int;
howie.weiss at sparta.com
Cc: sls-sea-dls at mailman.ccsds.org; sls-sea-dls-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org
Subject: SDLS BB : proposal for PS comments dispositions
Dear SDLS WG members,
Please find attached a redline version of the SDLS BB with proposed
dispositions for Peter Shames comments (in line with my herebelow mail).
The text modifications are tentatively justified wrt Peter?s comment. We
should converge internally to the WG before sending the proposed redline
to Peter Shames. Craig, as technical editor of the book, could you please
take the lead on this ? I am leaving for one week so will not be able to
make any progress.
Best regards,
Gilles
Gilles MOURY
SDLS WG Co-Chair
De : sls-sea-dls-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org [
mailto:sls-sea-dls-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] De la part de Moury Gilles
Envoyé : mercredi 19 août 2015 15:45
À : Daniel.Fischer at esa.int; Ignacio.Aguilar.Sanchez at esa.int
Cc : sls-sea-dls at mailman.ccsds.org; sls-sea-dls-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org
Objet : RE: [Sls-sea-dls] results of CESG poll for SDLS BB publication
Dear Daniel, Ignacio and SDLS WG members,
I concur with Ignacio and Daniel proposals for Peter?s comments
disposition. More specifically, taking Peter?s comments one by one (I
attach Peter?s commented version for reference):
P 1-1 : OK for the 2 comments
P 1-3, 3-1 : The usage of the term Payload: this term is duly defined
upfront in SDLS book and therefore this definition replaces the CCSDS
generic definition in the context of SDLS. The term is used consistently
throughout the document. Besides the term payload is widely used with that
meaning in the COMSEC domain. I agree with Ignacio and Daniel that we
should discuss this with Peter and advocate for keeping this term.
P 2-1 : Comment not understood. To be discussed with Peter. In any case we
can remove the parenthesis in the note if that causes problem.
P 2-2 : I do not support inserting in SDLS a duplicate of figures 6-1 of
TM, TC and AOS books, but we could simply refer/point to it respectively
in sections 2.2.3, 2.2.4 and 2.2.5 with a statement like: ?the structure
of the TM/TC/AOS Transfer Frame with SDLS is given in Figure 6-1 of
[1]/[2]/[3]. This statement could also be placed once in section 2.3.1.4
Security Header and Trailer.
P 2-5 : Figure 2-4 : we need to change A and B to AOS ApplySecurity
payload or return (instead of TM ApplySecurity ?)
P2-8, 4-9, 4-12 : NOTE on sequence number rollover : I would suggest
keeping the NOTE but limiting it to the first sentence (The interpretation
of a sequence number rollover (to zero) is mission specific) and then
pointing to a specific SDLS green book subsection where this is discussed
in more details. This would avoid confusion for implementers making it
clear there is no specific recommendation (should) or permission (may) for
that subject in the Blue Book.
P 3-7, 3-10 : SA management service: I would propose keeping subsection
3.4.2 intact (SA management service parameters). Replace the NOTE in 3.4.3
(SA management service directives) by : ?The directives for SA management
will be specified in a CCSDS recommendation currently under development
(355.1-B: SDLS extended procedures).? To be coherent with that, I would
replace the second sentence of subsection 3.4.1 by: ?The service
directives necessary
to manage the SA parameters will be specified in a CCSDS recommendation
currently under development (355.1-B: SDLS extended procedures)?. As
suggested by Daniel, we could add a column in table 6-1 to indicate the
correspondence between parameters denomination in subsection 3.4.2 and in
Table 6-1.
P 5-1: Peters comment: (no mention of payload in that section 5 ?Use of
the services with CCSDS protocols?). I would propose to show the
?ApplySecurity payload? in figures 5-1 (TM transfer frame), 5-2 (TC), 5-3
(AOS).
P 6-1 : OK to add unspecified (an unspecified management system). For the
second comment (abstract SA data base) I tend to agree with Daniel, the SA
data base is not abstract . It has to be implemented both on-ground and
on-board.
P B-1 : OK to replace ?user-supplied data unit? by ?transfer frame data
field? to make it unambiguous.
I hope we can converge with Peter on commonly agreed dispositions. We need
to consolidate first our WG responses to his comments. Craig : let us know
your position wrt the comments, so we can produce a redline version of the
document with our proposed dispositions and associated explanations
inserted.
Best regards,
Gilles
Gilles MOURY
CNES Toulouse
De : Daniel.Fischer at esa.int [mailto:Daniel.Fischer at esa.int]
Envoyé : jeudi 13 août 2015 14:51
À : Ignacio.Aguilar.Sanchez at esa.int
Cc : Moury Gilles; sls-sea-dls at mailman.ccsds.org;
sls-sea-dls-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org
Objet : Re: [Sls-sea-dls] results of CESG poll for SDLS BB publication
Dear Igancio and all,
I checked the comments as well. I agree to all you say below and I have a
few more remarks/ first thoughts based on the comments that Peter put
in-line in the document.
1) The word payload: While of course it has different meanings, the term
"payload" is very well established in the communication protocol world.
You can find the following definition e.g. on Wikipedia: Payload in
computing (sometimes referred to as the actual or body data) is the cargo
of a data transmission. It is the part of the transmitted data which is
the fundamental purpose of the transmission, to the exclusion of
information sent with it (such as headers ormetadata, sometimes referred
to as overhead data) solely to facilitate delivery.
2) Regarding the inline comments:
P 1-1: I am not sure about both comments. Is this section not a standard
CCSDS section? It reads like one. If yes, I would not bother modifying it.
P 1-3: See payload discussion
P 2-1: I am not sure I understand the comment. We simply state that SDLS
is not associated with any other protocol and as an example we bring the
SPP. This may be a misunderstanding. Perhaps Peter confuses an association
with another protocol (e.g. for extended procedures) with the concept of
the underlying data-link layer protocol(s). If this causes too much
discussion, we could even remove the note.
P 2-2: Following up on Ignacios comments, i would not include too much
additional information here. We have the Green Book for that. Also, the
other SLS books that have been updated mention SDLS and how it fits in as
well.
P 2-8: OK, I can see where he is coming from regarding the comment on the
counter rollover. However, I think the note is pretty clear on this by
saying the interpretation is mission-specific. We could think about being
more concrete on this in the Green Book (if this is not already the case)
and explain the benefits of not rolling over and how this can related to
key lifetime.
P 3-7/3-10: I dont think that this section is an issue. Regarding the
parameters, I think together with Section 6 (Managed Parameters) it makes
sense to have them defined here. The only think that I agree may cause
confusion is the paramater naming. E.g: Section 3.4.2.2 says
"SA_authentication_key" while Section 6 says "Authentication Key". Maybe
we could add a column to the table on Section 6, referring to the names
used in Section 3.4.2.2. Regarding Section 3.4.3, I would almost be
tempted to remove the Section from the standard (it is empty and the note
will be out of date once the extended procedures...which are not a
"revision" of the SDLS standard, but an addon...are out. We could pick
this up in the Green Book.
P 6-1: (1) Not sure why we should add "unspecified". Did he want to say
st. like "not covered by this standard?"...TBD (2) The SA database is not
abstract. In fact it has to be very concrete if you want to do an
implementation. Our prototype has one.
3) I think we should seek to have telcon with Peter not too far in the
future to discuss his comments and not wait three months for the next
meetings. This way, we could speed up the publication process a bit. What
do you think?
Cheers
Daniel
Dr. Daniel Fischer
----------------------------
Data Systems Manager
Ground Systems Engineering Support Office
Ground Systems Engineering Department
Directorate of Human Spaceflight and Operations
European Space Agency - ESOC
Robert-Bosch-Str. 5
D-64293 Darmstadt - Germany
Tel: +49 (0) 6151 90 2718 - Fax: +49 (0) 6151 90 2718
Web: http://www.esa.int
From: Ignacio.Aguilar.Sanchez at esa.int
To: Moury Gilles <Gilles.Moury at cnes.fr>,
Cc: "sls-sea-dls at mailman.ccsds.org" <sls-sea-dls at mailman.ccsds.org>
Date: 13/08/2015 13:35
Subject: Re: [Sls-sea-dls] results of CESG poll for SDLS BB
publication
Sent by: sls-sea-dls-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org
Dear Gilles and colleagues,
I believe the comment from Tomaso, supported by Keith, is easy to deal
with
the inclusion of such note.
Concerning Peter's comments,
1) We all agreed and supported harmonisation of the SDLS with the SLPs,
Part
of the agreement was the assumption that the potential user shall start
reading the SLPs before getting to the SDLS (since it is a NEW optional
SLP
function). And we (SLP WG + SDLS WG) were very careful in deciding what to
put where. This can explain why the SDLS does not read so well
stand-alone,
as Peter seems to want.
Including the three different scenarios (TC, TM, AOS) with corresponding
drawings into the SDLS will substantially 'inflate' the introduction.
And will risk causing incoherency issues with the SLPs and the still-to-be
published SDLS Green Book.
I think the issue needs to be re-discussed with Peter since the drawings
are
already at the documents where they are supposed to be.
2) The word 'payload' is mentioned 72 times in the document. The last
mention
is in paragraph B1.1, which is perhaps the one that I can see somewhat
inconsistent but it should be easy to fix. Hence, I beg to disagree with
Peter concerning inconsistency in its use. A different thing is whether
another term could be used to avoid confusion with the classical meaning
of
payload in space missions but I think the meaning in SDLS is pretty clear
and
defined. On his proposals "package" looks too close to "packet" and "user
provided data" too close to "service data unit" (note that the 'payload'
as
in SDLS context includes the SDU and something else, hence not a valid
substitute).
Unless someone finds a clear and unambiguous term to replace 'payload' in
the
SDLS context, I would advocate to re-discuss the comment with Peter.
3) If the document has to be self-standing concerning its interpretation,
this is definitely a section that I think should stay. It is addressing a
core element of the SDLS. The Green Book will provide further elaboration
but
a bare minimum is needed to be able to understand and interpret SDLS.
4) There are three NOTES covering this issue that are consistent. I think
we
did not want to impose requirements in this subject, reason why they are
notes. But we could change it to requirements with the word 'may' to make
them more visible as suggested by Peter.
I hope the above helps.
Kind regards,
Ignacio
From: Moury Gilles <Gilles.Moury at cnes.fr>
To: "sls-sea-dls at mailman.ccsds.org" <
sls-sea-dls at mailman.ccsds.org>
Date: 13/08/2015 11:01
Subject: [Sls-sea-dls] results of CESG poll for SDLS BB
publication
Sent by: sls-sea-dls-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org
Dear CCSDS SDLS WG member,
Please find attached 2 files:
The results of the CESG poll (as of today ? it terminates tomorrow)
The commented version of the SDLS Blue Book attached to the comments of
Peter
Shames (SEA AD)
We have to respond to those comments and resolve them with the issuer
before
we can actually publish the BB. Please advise on the way to respond to
those
comments.
Best regards,
Gilles MOURY
SDLS WG Co-Chair
=========================================================
Gilles MOURY
CNES Toulouse
Expert senior "Plateforme Satellite"
Sous-Direction "Techniques Véhicule, Architecture & Intégration"
DCT/TV-RA - Bpi 1416
18, avenue Edouard Belin
F-31401 TOULOUSE Cedex 9
http://www.cnes.fr
tel : +33 (0)5 61 27 3790
fax : +33 (0)5 61 27 4099
sec : +33 (0)5 61 27 3882
mob : +33 (0)6 83 56 0485
=========================================================
[attachment "results CESG SDLS BB poll.docx" deleted by Ignacio Aguilar
Sanchez/estec/ESA] [attachment "355x0b0_CESG_Approval-SEA.pdf" deleted by
Ignacio Aguilar Sanchez/estec/ESA]
_______________________________________________
SLS-SEA-DLS mailing list
SLS-SEA-DLS at mailman.ccsds.org
http://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sls-sea-dls
This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee
or addressees only.
The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in
whole or in part) of its
content is not permitted.
If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete
it from your system.
Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the
sender.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
_______________________________________________
SLS-SEA-DLS mailing list
SLS-SEA-DLS at mailman.ccsds.org
http://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sls-sea-dls
This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee
or addressees only.
The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in
whole or in part) of its
content is not permitted.
If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete
it from your system.
Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the
sender.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.[attachment
"355x0b0_CESG_Approval with CESG comments dispositions 2.doc" deleted by
Ignacio Aguilar Sanchez/estec/ESA]
_______________________________________________
SLS-SEA-DLS mailing list
SLS-SEA-DLS at mailman.ccsds.org
http://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sls-sea-dls
This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee or addressees only.
The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in whole or in part) of its
content is not permitted.
If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system.
Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the sender.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sls-sea-dls/attachments/20150824/cc6d779b/attachment.html>
More information about the SLS-SEA-DLS
mailing list