[cssm] SMURF Test Plan / Report --> spaceUserNode optional or not in ReportRequest

Marcin.Gnat at dlr.de Marcin.Gnat at dlr.de
Wed Jul 14 10:16:11 UTC 2021

Please also note, that the same is true for next test case (SMU-P2-3) where we ask for SIM_SCH_FREE. The way the FREE times are provides (as unallocated times!) contradicts binding it to a specific spacecraft.

From: SMWG <smwg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> On Behalf Of Marcin.Gnat at dlr.de
Sent: Mittwoch, 14. Juli 2021 12:10
To: smwg at mailman.ccsds.org
Subject: [cssm] SMURF Test Plan / Report --> spaceUserNode optional or not in ReportRequest

Dear all,

One thing related to the discussion yesterday on Test Report and specifically the discussion on Report Request and the optionality and multiplicity of "spaceUserNode".

I just looked up the SMURF definition, and unless it changed in 0.16 (Colin?) I think our commend which we made to this test case (SMU-P2-2) is still valid. The definition is:

results in a Simple Schedule (see Ref. [4]) containing only information directly related to the requesting user

results in a Simple Schedule (see Ref. [4]) containing  a complete schedule of all station/aperture allocations insofar as this is permitted by the agencies policies.
results in a Simple Schedule (see Ref. [4]) containing a schedule of all aperture free times insofar as this is permitted by the agencies policies.

The case which we have with spaceUserNode being (1..*), as required by Martin, makes sense for the SIM_SCH_SPECIFIC type of the request. In case we use SIM_SCH_COMPLETE, the explicit limitation/list of spacecraft does not make sense (from the logic point of view). Therefore our comment to this test case, asking for the spaceUserNode being optional is still valid (In that context!).

My Proposal is to either:

  1.  Allow spaceUserNode be optional (0..*) to be explicitly skipped when using SIM_SCH_COMPLETE


  1.  Remove SIM_SCH_COMPLETE type from SMURF definition, because it that effectively is no difference to SIM_SCH_SPECIFIC

Best Regards

From: SMWG <smwg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:smwg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>> On Behalf Of Barkley, Erik J (US 3970) via SMWG
Sent: Mittwoch, 14. Juli 2021 01:56
To: CCSDS Service Mgmt WG <smwg at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:smwg at mailman.ccsds.org>>
Subject: [cssm] Notes for July 13th telecon + updated action items

CSSM Colleagues,

Attached are the notes from the teleconference on July 13th.  Corrections appreciated.    The notes have also been uploaded to the teleconference folder on CWE (meeting materials --> 2021 --> Telecons or

https://cwe.ccsds.org/css/docs/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=%2Fcss%2Fdocs%2FCSS%2DSM%2FMeeting%20Materials%2F2021%2FTelecons&FolderCTID=0x012000A2CFA608DF169C4EB988261660CEFAEB&View=%7BD853EDDB%2DF007%2D4BF6%2D8C31%2DBA03A9D0F4A4%7D )

Also attached is the updated action item list which has also been posted to the action item folder in the CWE private space.

Our next telecon is scheduled for August 3rd.

Best regards,


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/smwg/attachments/20210714/3fc7c2ec/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the SMWG mailing list