[Sls-slp] RID and RID response to Prox-1 Data Link Protocol

[Kazz, Greg J]

All,

I have received the following RIDs, from Vignesh Krishnumurthy, RSA regarding an actual inconsistency in the Proximity-1 Data Link Protocol Specification - see the RID request and the proposed RID responses attached to this email.

Your participation in this matter is greatly appreciated!

I will post both the RID request and response on the CWE under the SLS-SLP WG:
http://cwe.ccsds.org/sls/docs/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=%2fsls%2fdocs%2fSLS-SLP%2fDraft%20Documents%2fProx1_vigneshs_RIDs&FolderCTID=&View={16ACDA38-FFA3-4657-8F27-B166C23C24A2}<http://cwe.ccsds.org/sls/docs/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=%2fsls%2fdocs%2fSLS-SLP%2fDraft%20Documents%2fProx1_vigneshs_RIDs&FolderCTID=&View=%7b16ACDA38-FFA3-4657-8F27-B166C23C24A2%7d>

If you have trouble with this URL, navigate the following path:

SLS-SLP/Draft Documents/Prox1_vigneshs_RIDs

The main issue has to do with the following statement (number 2, the underlined text below) that contradicts the Receiving Node requirement for handling the Source/Destination Flag (S/D Flag):

3.2.2.9 Source-or-Destination Identifier (yellow highlight is unintended - please ignore)
3.2.2.9.1 Bit 20 of the Transfer Frame Header shall contain the Source-or-Destination Identifier.
3.2.2.9.2 The Source-or-Destination Identifier shall identify the link node to which the value in the SCID field applies:
            a) a setting of '0' shall indicate that:
                        1)  The SCID refers to the source of the transfer frame,
                        2) The test of the SCID shall be included in the Frame sublayer only when  Test_Source is true;

The underline text needs to be removed (See RID resolution text in the second attachment) and replaced with text that says the test is always performed by the receiving node.

Please take a look at the attachments and I would appreciate it if you can post your comments to the SLS-SLP WG via sls-slp at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:sls-slp at mailman.ccsds.org> mailing list.

The good news is the update will correct these errors in the specification and make it more understandable.

We will need to resolve this issue at the upcoming meeting in Noordwijk, the Netherlands.

Best regards,

Greg Kazz
Chairman CCSDS SLS-SLP WG


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sls-slp/attachments/20090714/bb4ceb07/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: vignesh_Krishnamurthy_RID_Request_July_10_09.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 37888 bytes
Desc: vignesh_Krishnamurthy_RID_Request_July_10_09.doc
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sls-slp/attachments/20090714/bb4ceb07/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: vignesh_Krishnamurthy_RID_Response_July_14_09.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 50688 bytes
Desc: vignesh_Krishnamurthy_RID_Response_July_14_09.doc
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sls-slp/attachments/20090714/bb4ceb07/attachment-0001.doc>