CSTS

SLE Transfer Service Specifications Pink Books

Results of the Agencies’ Review

W. Hell

21.04.2009

CSTS

Rids received

ESA INPE NASA Σ RAF 10 (5/3/2) 1 (0/1/0) 3 (2/1/0) 14 (7/5/2) RCF 2 (2/0/0) 2 (1/1/0) 3 (2/1/0) 7 (5/2/0) ROCF 2 (2/0/0) 5 (1/3/1) 3 (2/1/0) 10 (5/4/1) F-CLTU 3 (3/0/0) 7 (5/2/0) 12 (8/1/3) 22 (16/3/3) FSP 1 (1/0/0) 8 (3/5/0) 3 (2/1/0) 12 (6/6/0)

Legend: Accepted Rejected Open Note: CNES stated that the documents have been reviewed, but no need to raise RIDs has been found.

CSTS

RAF

Changes implemented by the CCSDS Secretariat (Tom Gannet):

• Normative Annex D became B (all normative annexes to precede informative annexes)

• version-number parameter value in the BIND invocation changed from 2 to 3 (clause 3.2.2.8.6)

CSTS

RAFRIDs• ESA RID 1 (2.4.1 d))

Issue: The current text may give wrong impressions (e.g. it may give the impression that randomization is not applicable to RS or Turbo codes)Disposition: Accepted with modifications – retain the sequence in which the decoding process has to be performed

• ESA RID 2 (1.7)Issue: A typo that was already corrected in the submission by the WGDisposition: Rejected: The mentioned problem is not present, neither in the Pink Sheets nor in the to be Blue Book

• ESA RID 3 (2.4, NOTE 1)Issue: Is the exclusion of differently coding schemes on one physical link appropriate?Disposition: On hold, the final text depends on feedback from the SLS-C&S WG. Latest feedback: That WG will update their book.

• ESA RID 4 (3.6.2.6)Issue: Take into account LDPC codingDisposition: On hold, as it depends on SLS-C&S WG feedback.

CSTS

RAFRIDs• ESA RID 5 (3.6.2.6.2)

Issue: For the FECF, only the encoding is defined, but the decoding method is not prescribedDisposition: Accepted and phrasing modified accordingly

• ESA RID 6 (3.6.2.8)Issue: Simpler language defining what gets delivered if the frame is ‘good’Disposition: Accepted and phrasing modified (with modifications)

• ESA RID 7 and 8 (3.6.2.8 c) and e))Issue: Length specification may be misread depending on pre/ or post decoding frame synchronizationDisposition: Rejected, language is regarded accurate

• ESA RID 9 (ASN.1 picoseconds time specification)Issue: Embellishment to flag that the time code format as used is a CCSDS endorsed format. Note: This affects all booksDisposition: Accepted

CSTS

RAF

RIDs• ESA RID 10 (3.6.2.3)

Issue: Reference event for the ERT should remain unchanged, i.e. first bit of the ASM. Missions using punctured coding accepted the consequences in terms of jitter / uncertainty.Note: This modification affects all return servicesDisposition: Accepted

• INPE RID 1 (3.1.5 NOTE)Issue: Change ‘closed network’ to ‘private network’The requested change is outside the scope of the Pink Sheetsreview and would affect the part blessed by the Security WGDisposition: Rejected (on procedural grounds). If accepted, all SLE books had to be modified that way

CSTS

RAF

RIDs• NASA RID 1 (A.2-5)

Issue: Correct the ASN.1 module such that for CLTU times refer to radiation rather than production Disposition: Rejected. The requested changes affect an ASN.1 module that is not part of the RAF Recommendation

• NASA RID 2 (all ASN.1 modules)Correct the ASN.1 module version numbers. Note: This affects all SLE booksDisposition: Accepted

• NASA RID 3 (1.5.2, Fig. 1-1)Issue: Correct the figure as to have a distinction between the ‘best practice’ SLE API specifications and the Recommendation specifying the mapping of the SLE protocols to TCP/IP. Note: This affects all SLE books Disposition: Accepted

CSTS

RCF

Changes implemented by the CCSDS Secretariat (Tom Gannet):

• Normative Annex D became B (all normative annexes to precede informative annexes)

• version-number parameter value in the BIND invocation should have been changed from 2 to 3 (clause 3.2.2.8.6), but apparently the secretariat missed that point. Or was it intentional, as the Blue Book version is 2 (RAF is 3)

CSTS

RCF

RIDs• ESA RID 1 (3.6.2.3)

as ESA RID 10 on RAFDisposition: Accepted

• ESA RID 2 (ASN.1)as ESA RID 9 on RAFDisposition: Accepted

• INPE RID 1 (1.5.2, Fig. 1-1)Issue: Box representing the SLE Green Book too small hiding part of the textDisposition: Accepted, but figure to be redrawn completely in response to RCF NASA RID 3

• INPE RID 2 (full document)Issue: Remove all ‘strikethrough’Disposition: Rejected. ‘strikethrough’ is present only in the Pink Sheet to facilitate the review, but is not in the to be Blue Book

CSTS

RCF

RIDs• NASA RID 1 (A2.5)

as NASA RID 1 on RAFDisposition: Rejected. The requested changes affect an ASN.1 module that is not part of the RCF Recommendation

• NASA RID 2 (all ASN.1 modules)as NASA RID 2 on RAFDisposition: Accepted

• NASA RID 3 (1.5.2, Fig. 1-1)as NASA RID 3 on RAFDisposition: Accepted

CSTS

ROCF

Changes implemented by the CCSDS Secretariat (Tom Gannet):

• Normative Annex D became B (all normative annexes to precede informative annexes)

• version-number parameter value in the BIND invocation has been changed from 1 to 2 (clause 3.2.2.8.6)

CSTS

ROCF

RIDs• ESA RID 1 (3.6.2.3)

as ESA RID 10 on RAF and 1 on RCFDisposition: Accepted

• ESA RID 2 (ASN.1)as ESA RID 9 on RAF and 2 on RCFDisposition: Accepted

• INPE RID 1 (1.5.2, Fig. 1-1)as INPE RID 1 on RCFDisposition: Accepted, but figure to be redrawn completely in response to ROCF NASA RID 3

• INPE RID 2 (3.1.5 NOTE)as INPE RID 1 on RAF Disposition: Rejected: Not a mandatory change and outside the scope of the Pink Book review

CSTS

ROCFRIDs• INPE RID 3 (full document)

as INPE RID 2 on RCFDisposition: Rejected. ‘strikethrough’ is present only in the Pink Sheet to facilitate the review, but is not in the to be Blue Book

• INPE RID 4 (3.1.5.2)Issue: Replace generic term ‘service provider’ with ‘ROCF service provider’Disposition: Rejected. The text on authentication is generic and identical in all SLE Transfer Service Specification. Furthermore, the text is as before and therefore not subject to the Pink Sheet review

• INPE RID 5 (3.1.8.3, Table 3-1)Issue: The relationship of the managed parameter service-version-number in Table 3-1 and the parameter version-number in clause 3.2.2.8 is not obviousDisposition: On Hold. This item, which affects all SLE books, needs to be discussed. Does it make sense to manage a parameter that can be negotiated when the association is established? On the other hand it appears that none of the existing implementations actually supports version negotiation

CSTS

ROCF

RIDs• NASA RID 1 (A2.5)

as NASA RID 1 on RAF and NASA RID 1on RCFDisposition: Rejected. The requested changes affect an ASN.1 module that is not part of the RCF Recommendation

• NASA RID 2 (all ASN.1 modules)as NASA RID 2 on RAF and 2 on RCFDisposition: Accepted

• NASA RID 3 (1.5.2, Fig. 1-1)as NASA RID 3 on RAF and 3 on RCFDisposition: Accepted

CSTS

F-CLTU

Changes implemented by the CCSDS Secretariat (Tom Gannet):

• References to technical corrigenda removed• version-number parameter value in the BIND

invocation has been changed from 2 to 3 (clause 3.2.2.8.6)

• In annex A, SpaceLinkDataUnit, the size range (4 .. 65536) changed "4" to "1" to be consistent with the other return services books

• Normative Annex D became B (all normative annexes to precede informative annexes)

• Annex on Production Status made informative. Wasn’t our intent to have it normative? We missed that point for FSP. If yes, we have to make it annex C

CSTS

F-CLTU

RIDs• ESA RID 1 (ASN.1)

as ESA RID 9 on RAF, 2 on RCF and 2 on ROCFDisposition: Accepted

• ESA RID 2 (3.6.2.8.4 a) 6)Concern: The does not accurately define the guard time between to consecutive CLTUs in the case that the acquisition is made part of the CLTU data structure properDisposition: Accepted. But the actual modification is superseded by NASA RID 11.

• ESA RID 3 (ASN.1)Issue: Radiation start/stop time are regarded better language in the F-CLTU context than production start/stop timeDisposition: Accepted

CSTS

F-CLTU

RIDs• INPE RID 1 (1.5.2, Fig. 1-1)

as INPE RID 1 on RCF and INPE RID 1 on ROCFDisposition: Accepted, but figure to be redrawn completely in response to NASA F-CLTU RID 12

• INPE RID 2 (full document)as INPE RID 2 on RCF and 3 on ROCFDisposition: Rejected. ‘strikethrough’ is present only in the Pink Sheet to facilitate the review, but is not in the to be Blue Book

• INPE RID 3 (3.1.5 NOTE) As INPE RID 1 on RAF and RID 2 on ROCFDisposition: Rejected

• INPE RID 4 (3.6.2.8.4 a) 5))Issue: More readable language proposedDisposition: Accepted, but superseded by NASA RID 10

CSTS

F-CLTU

RIDs• INPE RID 5 (3.6.2.8.4 b) 1))

Issue: More readable language proposedDisposition: Accepted

• INPE RID 6 (3.6.2.10)Issue: Heading not in fixed width font Disposition: Accepted

• INPE RID 7 (Annexes)Issue: The sequence of the annexes in the different SLE books is inconsistentDisposition: On hold, but tentatively accepted. The sequence of the annexes has already been modified by the secretariat (normative annexes first). Further changes may be needed pending the decision regarding the annex on production status

CSTS

F-CLTU

RIDs• NASA RID 1 (Table 4-1)

Issue: Allow for the ‘already bound’ diagnostic in ‘ready’ and ‘active’ stateDisposition: Rejected. The ‘already bound’ diagnostic only applies in case a second BIND via a different association is attempted. Otherwise we have a protocol error that leads to a protocol abort. The case of a separate association is NOT specified in Table 4-1 as per clause 4.2.1.5.

• NASA RID 2 (3.7.2.3)Issue: No notification to the user when productions status changes from halted to configured, i.e. the user does not know when he can transfer CLTUs again.Disposition: Accepted, new notification type added. Note that this also necessitates a modification of the CltuNotification ASN.1 data type. To be confirmed by the WG.

CSTS

F-CLTURIDs• NASA RID 3 (Table 3-11)

Issue: The list of getable parameters is incomplete. Add idle-sequence-length and service-instance-provision-periodDisposition: On hold. The issue of the incomplete list of parameters was discussed by the WG. There are a number of further parameters missing from that list. If we touch the issue at all, then we should cure this problem for all parameters. Note that this implies also changes to the ASN.1

• NASA RID 4 (p. G-3, last sentence of NOTE 3)Issue: The parameter notification-mode shall be in fixed width fontDisposition: Accepted. However, as this parameter is only managed and never shows up on the SLE interface proper, it is not clear if in this case this typographical convention really applies.

• NASA RID 5 (Table B-1)Issue: Improved language to make the conformance requirement consistent with section 3.1.10.2Disposition: Accepted

CSTS

F-CLTU

RIDs• NASA RID 6 (A2.5)

As NASA RID 1 on RAF, 1 on RCF, 1 on ROCF, and ESA RID 3 on F-CLTUDisposition: Accepted

• NASA RID 7 (all ASN.1 modules)as NASA RID 2 on RAF, RID 2 on RCF and RID 2 on ROCFDisposition: Accepted

• NASA RID 8 (3.6.2.13.1 f)) Issue: Not only in the ASN.1 (see NASA RID 6) but also in the text the term ‘production time’ should be replaced with ‘radiation time’. Disposition: Accepted

• NASA RID 9 (3.6.2.8.4 a) 3) NOTE)Issue: The present language could be misread as if all spacecraft do not fully adhere to PLOP-1Disposition: Accepted, language updated as proposed

CSTS

F-CLTU

RIDs• NASA RID 10 (3.6.2.8.4 a) 2) and 3.6.2.8.4 a) 5))

Issue: Lack of clarity on how to insert idle sequences in conjunction with PLOP-1. Improve language so that it is clear that pre- and post-CLTU sequences are of the same lengthDisposition: On hold. We should reach consensus in the WG that this interpretation of 231x0.b1 is correct or at least acceptable

• NASA RID 11 (3.6.2.8) Issue: The definitions of what determines the guard times between consecutive CLTUs are inconsistent. Disposition: On hold. New text available, but that needs careful review by a person different from the author. Text accepted by the ‘RID Team’

• NASA RID 12 (1.5.2, Fig. 1-1)as NASA RIDs 3 on RAF, 3 on RCF, and 3 on ROCFDisposition: Accepted

CSTS

FSP

Changes implemented by the CCSDS Secretariat (Tom Gannet):

• References to technical corrigenda removed• version-number parameter value in the BIND

invocation has been changed from 1 to 2 (clause 3.2.2.8.6)

• In annex A, SpaceLinkDataUnit, the size range (4 .. 65536) changed "4" to "1" to be consistent with the other return services books

• Normative Annex F became C (all normative annexes to precede informative annexes)

• Annex C on Production Status made informative (now annex D). Wasn’t our intent to have it normative? We missed that point for FSP in the Pink Book.

CSTS

FSP

RIDs• ESA RID 1 (ASN.1)

as ESA RID 9 on RAF, 2 on RCF, 2 on ROCF, and 1 on F-CLTUDisposition: Accepted

• INPE RID 1 (1.5.2, Fig. 1-1)as INPE RID 1 on RCF, 1 on ROCF and 1 on F-CLTUAccepted, but figure to be redrawn completely in response to NASA RID 3

• INPE RID 2 (unspecified, but presumably 3.10.2.5.1)Issue: Duplication of word ‘parameter’Disposition: Rejected. The first occurrence is part of the parameter name (fsp-parameter) while the second occurrence identifies the object with that name to be a parameter. This is also clear from the different fonts used for the parameter name and normal text.

CSTS

FSP

RIDs• INPE RID 3 (full document)

as INPE RID 2 on RCF, 3 on ROCF, and 2 on F-CLTUDisposition: Rejected. ‘strikethrough’ is present only in the Pink Sheet to facilitate the review, but is not in the to be Blue Book

• INPE RID 4 (Table 4-1, line 27 and other places) Issue: Replace ‘invoke directive capability on this VC established’ with ‘invoke directive capability on this established VC’Disposition: Rejected, because what gets established is the capability and not the VC. However, as the RID shows, the current phrasing might be misinterpreted. Shall we therefore modify the text to read ‘invoke directive capability established on this VC’?

• INPE RID 5 and 6 (A-18, A-19)Issue: The indentation of the part that has been added to accommodate the new gettable parameters is incorrectDisposition: Accepted. Also a closing curly brace was missing

CSTS

FSP

RIDs• INPE RID 7 (NOTE 2 on page D-2)

Issue: This note is not referenced in Table D-1Disposition: Rejected. The table is intended to specify under which production status transition a notification is sent. So far (this may change if NASA RID 2 on F-CLTU gets accepted) no notification is sent when the production status becomes ‘configured’ and therefore note 2 is not referenced in the table. Nonetheless the note should be kept as it provides important information with respect to the ‘configured’ production status

• INPE RID 8 (Annexes)as INPE RID 7 on F-CLTU Disposition: Accepted. The sequence of the annexes has already been modified by the secretariat (normative annexes first). Further changes may be needed pending the decision regarding the annex on production status

CSTS

FSP

RIDs• NASA RID 1 (A2.5)

as NASA RID 1 on RAF, 1 on RCF, 1 on ROCF, and 6 on F-CLTUDisposition: Rejected. The requested changes are applicable to F-CLTU only

• NASA RID 2 (all ASN.1 modules)as NASA RID 2 on RAF, 2 on RCF, 2 on ROCF and 7 on F-CLTUDisposition: Accepted

• NASA RID 3 (1.5.2, Fig. 1-1)as NASA RIDs 3 on RAF, 3 on RCF, 3 on ROCF, and 12 on F-CLTUDisposition: Accepted