I am currently a master student working in robotics. In my research project, I have been building up a systematic framework for my research problem. I have collected a dataset in the process and experiment with it using some advanced algorithms I have proposed. And the paper 1 I have written address in detail how those advanced algorithms are defined and come in handy, while addressing the framework in less detail (more details are focused on the algorithms, making the scope of paper really large already. Only a simple logic procedure of the framework is briefly discussed). The first paper's already submitted in a computer science conference & is under review.
Then after some experiments, I have realized that, the systematic framework I have applied in Paper 1 can be a more generic framework, applying to different scenarios for different application purposes. In this case, the experiment I have in Paper 1 with the advanced algorithms can be seen as a complex extension to this generic framework & the advanced algorithms I have used for paper 1 experiments can be adapted or even simplified to better suit the framework. I have written another Paper 2 discussing this generality aspect of the framework, with the simplified yet slightly different experimental setting as a case study for the framework. A portion of the dataset originally proposed with Paper 1 is used. I have also discussed in depth how the generic framework can be applied for a completely different scenario, but I did not have the case study for it at the moment.
Also, while paper 1's still under review, I have submitted an ArXiv preprint. All similarities in paper 2 compared to paper 1 are properly cited, noted and discussed if necessary, when writing paper 2.
So the question is, is it OK to have this paper 2 submitted to another conference (an automation conference vs. the previous cs one) for review? Is paper 2 considered to be an "unethical salami slicing"?