RE: [Ccglrit-gcclrit] WG1 International LRIT Data Centre spec

Bill and all, First I need to correct myself; SDL = Specification and Description Language (ref. e.g. ITU-T Z.100). Secondly I attach my thoughts about the IDC in a (standard) block diagram (1) and the first drawing/page of the IDC as an SDL-diagram (2). (1) "Top-level block diagram" (.vsd & .jpg files attached, .jpg is included for those who cannot read MS Visio files). This drawing is my understanding of the drawing to be included in 3.1 in Bill's document. (2) "Block LRIT SDL" (also included as .vsd and .jpg files). This drawing shows the (proposed) processes of the IDC with the input and output signals (without parameters). When this drawing, the naming convention and interfaces and signals are agreed upon, each process can be further specified in detail in SDL process diagrams. My recommendation for the further work is, as indicated in my previous email, that complete sets of SDLs are written for the IDC as well as the IDE. The IDC SDLs will be quite similar to the National and Regional LRIT Data Centre functional descriptions. Hence, the IDC and IDE SDLs will together with an interface description and some additional descriptive text be an LRIT System Definition Manual (SDM) that fully describes the necessary parts and functions required to meet the LRIT system expectations of MSC. Best regards, Olaf Jansen DNV -----Original Message----- From: ccglrit-gcclrit-bounces(a)lists.ncf.ca [mailto:ccglrit-gcclrit-bounces@lists.ncf.ca] On Behalf Of Olaf.Jansen(a)dnv.com Sent: 3. august 2006 17:05 To: ccglrit-gcclrit(a)lists.ncf.ca Subject: RE: [Ccglrit-gcclrit] WG1 International LRIT Data Centre spec Dear all, Thanks to CCG for arranging a useful and interesting meeting in Vancouver. (I have had summer vacation until last week and has not been able to give my comments earlier.) A) First, I will give my comments to the items raised by Mr. Rolf Zetterberg: 1. Billing functions required in the DCs and IDE. I agree, however, the IDE will have the "global" billing function to handle the cost of data requested through the IDE, while the DCs (at least the regional and International DCs) need billing functions to handle the relevant costs from the contracting governments connected to the each DC. (A national DC may not need this since the connected contracting government probably pay the development and operational cost of his own DC anyway.) 2. Error messages are included in the draft document for the LRIT Data Exchange, see ch. 2 "Summary of DE messages", see Msg.no. EM. 3. SAR retrieval of present data and request for new data is included in the draft document for the LRIT Data Exchange, see ch. 2 "Summary of DE messages", see Msg.no. SS & SR. B) I understand the comments given by Mr. Sadatoshi Koike. However, I regard the draft "Functional specification For The International LRIT DC" as a temporary working document, and the reason for copying text from MSC.210(81) was to ensure all relevant functions applicable for the International DC were remembered. Functions not relevant to the Int. DC was skipped. In the further work, I assume that the Top Level Int. DC Block Diagram referred to under item 3.1 will show that the necessary main functions are included. Then, the detailed description of the Int. LRIT DC should be visualized as a set of SDL (System Definition Language) drawings or by any other suitable Event-Based Architecture Definition Language intended for fairly complex software systems. Then, in the final version, the copied text from MSC.210(81) may be skipped as Mr. Koike says, and a reference to MSC.210(81) can be included instead. In a similar way the IDE needs to be specified in the same language. This, together with the requested Technical Specification for communication within the LRIT System (ref. MSC 81 report Annex 4 .3) will ensure compatibility when the whole LRIT system is connected. C) It should be remembered that the specification documents for the Int. DC and the IDE will be used by the LRIT co-ordinator as stated in MSC.210(81)item 14.2 .1 & .2 to retrieve the necessary proposals for development and operation. D) I am not yet sure if I can attend the meeting in September, but I will come back to this later. Best regards, Olaf Jansen Head of Section/Principal Engineer Nautical Safety & Communication Systems Det Norske Veritas, Høvik, Norway -----Original Message----- From: ccglrit-gcclrit-bounces(a)lists.ncf.ca [mailto:ccglrit-gcclrit-bounces@lists.ncf.ca] On Behalf Of Sadatoshi Koike Sent: 3. august 2006 09:20 To: ccglrit-gcclrit(a)lists.ncf.ca Subject: Re: [Ccglrit-gcclrit] WG1 International LRIT Data Centre spec Dear Sirs, Thank you for drafting international LRIT DC specifications. However, I think this document contains too many copies from MSC210(81) - Performance standards and functional requirements for LRIT(See attachment). As I stated some weeks ago, copies from other official resolutions must be avoided since this may cause conflicts between the two documents. We can insert references to MSC210, but copies must be deleted. The new information, which is not contained in MSC210, is just the following CAPACITY paragraph. ADDRESS SYSTEM CAPACITY... The International LRIT Data Centre shall be capable of processing 50,000 SOLAS Class ships. Based on the requirement for ships to transmit LRIT information four times per day, this results in 50,000 x 4 reports per day = 200,00 reports per day. In this case, perperps amendments to the existing MSC210 should be proposed in IMO. I think our task contained in the term of reference is to develop "technical specifications". However, if there is no need to develop additional documents, proposing amendments to the existing MSC210 might be one of the options. Regards, Sadatoshi Koike --- "Cairns, William" <WCairns(a)comdt.uscg.mil&gt; wrote: ************************************************************** Neither the confidentiality nor the integrity of this message can be vouched for following transmission on the Internet. All messages sent to a DNV email addressee are swept by Sybari Antigen for the presence of malicious code. DNV acknowledges that unsolicited email represents a potential security risk, and DNVs filters to block unwanted emails are therefore continuously adjusted. ************************************************************** _______________________________________________ Ccglrit-gcclrit mailing list Ccglrit-gcclrit(a)lists.ncf.ca http://lists.ncf.ca/mailman/listinfo/ccglrit-gcclrit ************************************************************** Neither the confidentiality nor the integrity of this message can be vouched for following transmission on the Internet. All messages sent to a DNV email addressee are swept by Sybari Antigen for the presence of malicious code. DNV acknowledges that unsolicited email represents a potential security risk, and DNVs filters to block unwanted emails are therefore continuously adjusted. **************************************************************