I am very concerned that we do not understand these formats properly. We need to engage an SME to verify that these proposals are enough to model MIL-STD-2045 and Link-16 (and other related formats). Until that happens IBM will not be able to close action 233.

Regards
 
Steve Hanson
Architect, IBM DFDL
Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group
IBM SWG, Hursley, UK
smh@uk.ibm.com
tel:+44-1962-815848



From:        Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl@gmail.com>
To:        "dfdl-wg@ogf.org" <dfdl-wg@ogf.org>,
Date:        24/07/2014 23:08
Subject:        Re: [DFDL-WG] bit order documents updated
Sent by:        dfdl-wg-bounces@ogf.org

---

Of course as soon as I post this I get the information needed to resolve several things.

The new byte-order enum is not needed, so I removed that material. The bit order document is now a fairly clean thing trying to be an errata.

Please review: draft-gwdi-bit-order-features-v3.0.docx

I created a separate working document on "Mixed Endian Byte Order" should we ever take this up again.

I also removed the TDML stuff into the TDML document. (now v2).


Mike Beckerle | OGF DFDL Workgroup Co-Chair | Tresys Technology | www.tresys.com
Please note: Contributions to the DFDL Workgroup's email discussions are subject to the OGF Intellectual Property Policy



On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl@gmail.com> wrote:

There are now several working documents having to do with bit-order. The prior document has been taken down and replaced by 3 others.

These are all up on redmine: http://redmine.ogf.org/dmsf/dfdl-wg?folder_id=5485

1) draft-gwdi-bit-order-features-v2.05.docx - Just describes the new features + TDML extension. The biggest section is organized like an errata specifying where things change in the spec. This should get incorporated into errata, or perhaps just referenced from an errata.

Section 3 of this doc is the proposed errata and spec language for review.

There is one major open issue here, which is it is unclear whether the mixed-endian byte order that was previously proposed is actually needed or not. The swapping of 16-bit words appears to be not a per-element thing, but something done as a pre-processing of an entire message body before parsing. This isn't something we can handle in DFDL, much like base64-encoded data and so forth. This may be the only place that needed the 16-bit word swapping.

2) Understanding Bit Orderings - draft-gwdi-mil-std-2045-understanding-bit-order-v2.05.docx - Material about bit order - the Wire model vs. Number model material. This is effectively just archiving this material for posterity.

If you already read this, you don't need to read it again.

3) draft-gwdi-mil-std-2045-additional-features-v2.05.docx - Material about additional DFDL features that would be helpful in modeling MIL-STD-2045.

This can also be reviewed. Not as urgent as (1) above.

4) draft-gwdi-dfdl-standard-encodings-v03.docx - This is material that will be integrated back into the spec as an appendix, but this incorporates feedback on prior versions, and adds a 6-bit ascii encoding that is used by the same binary format standards as the 7-bit one. Works same way, just 6 bits not 7, so there's some codepoint changes.

Mike Beckerle | OGF DFDL Workgroup Co-Chair | Tresys Technology | www.tresys.com
Please note: Contributions to the DFDL Workgroup's email discussions are subject to the OGF Intellectual Property Policy

--
 dfdl-wg mailing list
 dfdl-wg@ogf.org
 https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/dfdl-wg

Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU