[Smwg] Current Service Package Request/Service Package support for transfer service continuity across scenario changes and handovers

[Barkley, Erik J (3970)]

John,

Sure, we can put this on the agenda.    My quick take is that we won't really be able to say much about whether a bind/unbind is required for invocation of safe-mode - that is a management service discussion, not to mention getting  into fair degree of implementation concerns - (e.g, does the safe mode meaning switching to a different antenna? If so, is SLE traffic "brokered" into a common gateway or terminated directly at the aperture, etc.)   Certainly we can check to ensure that the information can be adequately carried in the data format definitions and we can chat about that tomorrow.

Best regards,
-Erik

From: John Pietras <john.pietras at gst.com>
Sent: Monday, February 4, 2019 14:05
To: Barkley, Erik J (3970) <Erik.J.Barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: CCSDS SMWG ML (smwg at mailman.ccsds.org) <smwg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: Current Service Package Request/Service Package support for transfer service continuity across scenario changes and handovers

Erik,
I haven't seen the agenda for tomorrow's SMWG telecon yet, but I would like to put an item on it if possible.

In a nutshell, in SCCS-SM Blue-1 we were able to accommodate keeping transfer service instances (e.g., F-CLTU, RAF) "bound" in cases of scenario change and handover because these multiple scenarios and handovers were able to be encapsulated in a single Service Package. I may be misunderstanding this, but it is my understanding that handovers and scenario changes are now treated as separate Service Packages. If that is true, what mechanisms are available(if any) to link such Service Packages so that the Provider CSSS "knows" that, for example, the RAF service instance that returns X-Band data in the nominal scenario is the same RAF service instance that will carry the S-Band return in the contingency safe-mode scenario, and therefore won't require an UNBIND/BIND sequence upon invocation of the safe-mode scenario?

Maybe there's a straightforward approach, and/or maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but I'd like to kick it around a bit if there's some time available. And part of that "kicking around" may involve revisiting the use cases for a TS instance staying bound during scenario change or handover.

Thanks.

John
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/smwg/attachments/20190204/2c7b1d40/attachment.html>