[Sls-slp] COP-1 with mixed protocols - RE: March 8 Telecon #4 Meeting Minutes now on CWE

Thu Mar 10 08:36:45 UTC 2016

Greg,
        with respect to the COPs I think we need some discussion in 
Cleveland at least to fix some ideas/decisions.
In addition to what Tomaso asks, we may want to point out about COP-1 
usage vs. protocols.
Clearly the CLCW has a 6 bits VC identifier to it can report about data 
received either within a TC frame or via a USLP Frame as both of them have 
the same size VC identifier.
In other words it is possible to have a link with TC Frames in Uplink and 
USLP Frames in downlink as well as having a link with USLP Frames in both 
directions.
This may need to be verified, agreed and spelled out in the document.

Another point is that it looks as USLP Managed Parametrs have nothing 
about usage with Proximity-1 and COP-P.
This is clearly an inheratanche from the fact that Proximity-1 
unfortunately has no (formal) section for Managed Parameters.
STill there is the need of importing/defining some USLP managed parameter 
for usage with Proximity-1 and COP-P (e.g. PLCW_Repeat_Interval, PLCW 
Timer, etc.).
I fear this task may be a little more complex to the "catch all" nature of 
Proximity-1 SDLP book and an action may need to be assigned and, at the 
very extreme, the need for a Magenta may be investigated.

In general USLP docs just says:
The use of either the COP-1, or COP-P procedures are optional and both are 
compatible with the USLP. The Protocol Data Units (CLCW for COP-1 and PLCW 
for COP-P) and operational procedures for both COP-1 and COP-P are not 
identical but similar and are transparent to USLP.

It may be an Annex could clarify how they are supposed to work with USLP.

It may a dedicated agenda (sub)point about USLP vs. COPs should be added.

Regards

Gian Paolo

From:   <Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de>
To:     <greg.j.kazz at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc:     sls-slp at mailman.ccsds.org
Date:   10/03/2016 09:11
Subject:        [Sls-slp] RE: March 8 Telecon #4 Meeting Minutes now on 
CWE
Sent by:        sls-slp-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org

Greg,

Actually I don?t ask to add 1 byte but to make a more efficient use of the 
5+8 bits, which are defined at the moment to protocol information and 
possible extensions. What I personally don?t like much is the fact that 
we?ll have a field where we?ll be mixing together protocol identifier and 
COP signaling indication (as also pointed out by Gian Paolo), which should 
instead go separated in my view.

I?d indeed appreciate if you could add these points in the Cleveland 
agenda, so that we can reach an easy and quick agreement on how to proceed 
with this.

Best Regards,

Tomaso

???????????????????????? 
Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR) 
German Aerospace Center 
Institute of Communications and Navigation | Satellite Networks | 
Oberpfaffenhofen | 82234 Wessling | Germany 
Tomaso de Cola, Ph.D. 
Telefon +49 8153 28-2156 | Telefax  +49 8153 28-2844 | 
tomaso.decola at dlr.de 
http://www.dlr.de/kn/institut/abteilungen/san 

From: Kazz, Greg J (312B) [mailto:greg.j.kazz at jpl.nasa.gov] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2016 17:18
To: Cola, Tomaso de
Cc: sls-slp at mailman.ccsds.org
Subject: Re: March 8 Telecon #4 Meeting Minutes now on CWE

Tomaso,

We heard your suggestions and considered them but we believe that the 
original suggested 5 bit (32 protocols) was adequate but provided for 
unexpected growth by providing the signaled inclusion of an additional 255 
IDs.  Why add a byte when we don?t need it? Of course, this can be 
discussed further in CLE.

Best regards,
Greg

From: "Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de" <Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de>
Date: Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 5:02 AM
To: "Kazz, Greg J (313B)" <greg.j.kazz at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: "sls-slp at mailman.ccsds.org" <sls-slp at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: RE: March 8 Telecon #4 Meeting Minutes now on CWE

Greg,

Just a clarification about the field transporting the protocol 
identifiers. In the past weeks, we discussed with Ed, Gian Paolo and Keith 
about the large space allocated so far (8+5 bits) and somehow agreed that 
we can simply have 8 bits (256 combinations are enough to account all 
different protocol and extensions where applicable) and leave the 
remaining 5 (which help for 32-bits alignment) as reserved. However, I 
cannot see this point reflected in the current version of the book. If 
this solution could be implemented in the book, then we could use any of 
the 5-reseved bits to bring information about the COP stuff, without 
mixing together COP and proto identifiers in the 8 bits field.

Best Regards,

Tomaso

????????????????????????
Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR)
German Aerospace Center
Institute of Communications and Navigation | Satellite Networks | 
Oberpfaffenhofen | 82234 Wessling | Germany
Tomaso de Cola, Ph.D.
Telefon +49 8153 28-2156 | Telefax  +49 8153 28-2844 |tomaso.decola at dlr.de
http://www.dlr.de/kn/institut/abteilungen/san

From: sls-slp-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org [
mailto:sls-slp-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] On Behalf Of Kazz, Greg J (312B)
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2016 19:06
To: sls-slp at mailman.ccsds.org
Subject: [Sls-slp] March 8 Telecon #4 Meeting Minutes now on CWE

Dear SLP WG,

Please find the minutes of USLP Draft White Book Telecon #4 on the CWE 
under the following URL:

http://tinyurl.com/jf9j6u3

The filename is: USLP Telecon 4 minutes March 08_2016

Best regards,

Greg_______________________________________________
Sls-slp mailing list
Sls-slp at mailman.ccsds.org
http://mailman.ccsds.org/mailman/listinfo/sls-slp

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-slp/attachments/20160310/4afca15f/attachment.html>