<font size=2 face="Arial">Dear Peter,</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">Please find enclosed in "Column G"
the MOIMS responses, whose main points are summarised below:</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">1. It is not clear the logic of merging together
so many dissimilar projects.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">2. We had proposed a priority in the list
of topics that you would like to cover in this WG, it is not clear if you
agree with our priority proposal, which we further elaborate below: </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">1. CCSDS Reference Architecture</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">2. CCSDS Registries</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">3. CCSDS XML standards</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">4. CCSDS Glossary (no ontology).</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">5. RASDS refresh.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">3. For the above activities you should provide
a credible and agreed list of supporting agencies with resources and plan.
For instance, the 3mm planned from ESA on Project 2 (XML Guidelines) are
certainly not in the ESA plan. Projects 3 and 4 are only supported by NASA:
is that at all possible?</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">4. We had provided detailed proposed editing
of the charter, which are not yet reflected in CWE. What is your position?</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">5. As for the provided concept paper, it
seems more the merge of inhomogeneous material, while the most important
aspect, i.e. the concept of how to retrofit the new proposed approaches
(e.g. XML guidelines, SANA Registries, Glossary, Ontology) into the
already work of the CCSDS is missing and needs to be addressed. Also, very
importantly, the CCSDS should be aware up-front of the impact (workload,
cost, ...) of these modifications on the work of other WGs. This is typically
the reason why CCSDS requires a BoF before a WG is created.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">Regards,</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">Brigitte and Mario</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">From:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">"Shames, Peter
M (312B)" <peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov></font>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">To:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">"Gian Paolo Calzolari"
<Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int>, "Mario Merri" <Mario.Merri@esa.int>,
"Brigitte Behal" <Brigitte.Behal@cnes.fr>, "Barkley,
Erik J (3970)" <erik.j.barkley@jpl.nasa.gov></font>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Cc:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">"ccsds techsupport"
<ccsds_techsupport@aiaa.org>, "CCSDS Engineering Steering Group
- CESG All" <cesg-all@mailman.ccsds.org></font>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Date:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">21/10/2015 01:23</font>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Subject:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Re: [Cesg-all]
Results of CESG Poll closing 18 September 2015 - System Architecture Working
group re-start</font>
<br>
<hr noshade>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">Dear All,</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">Attached please find the SEA SAWG BoF responses
to the conditions raised on the CESG poll that closed 18 Sept. There
are two documents attached:</font>
<ul>
<li><font size=2 face="Calibri">A spreadsheet that turns these conditions
into a set of distinct topics that have each been addressed.</font>
<li><font size=2 face="Calibri">A Concept Paper that provides the requested
background information, rationale, and task descriptions (including supporting
models showing the relationships among these separate projects), and that
otherwise covers all of the topics identified in the CCSDS YB section
6.1.3.3.5 regarding Concept Papers.</font></ul><font size=2 face="Calibri">And
…</font>
<ul>
<li><font size=2 face="Calibri">The SAWG draft projects in the CCSDS Management
Framework have been updated to align with the most current, and reasonable,
set of dates. There are both near term and future projects, as requested
by the CMC.</font>
<li><font size=2 face="Calibri">The CESG and CMC were polled, on 21 Sept,
asking for qualified candiates for the WG Chair. There were no responses
of any sort.</font></ul><font size=2 face="Calibri">Please indicate at your
earliest convenience if these responses now satisfy all of the conditions
that were raised. There were some CESG procedural considerations
that are really outside the scope of the SEA to address, so these were
deferred to the CESG meeting.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">Best regards, Peter</font>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri"><b>From: </b><</font><a href="mailto:cesg-all-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org"><font size=2 color=blue face="Calibri"><u>cesg-all-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org</u></font></a><font size=2 face="Calibri">>
on behalf of CCSDS Tech Support <</font><a href=mailto:ccsds_techsupport@aiaa.org><font size=2 color=blue face="Calibri"><u>ccsds_techsupport@aiaa.org</u></font></a><font size=2 face="Calibri">><b><br>
Date: </b>Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 2:47 PM<b><br>
To: </b>CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG All <</font><a href="mailto:cesg-all@mailman.ccsds.org"><font size=2 color=blue face="Calibri"><u>cesg-all@mailman.ccsds.org</u></font></a><font size=2 face="Calibri">><b><br>
Subject: </b>[Cesg-all] Results of CESG Poll closing 18 September 2015</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">CESG E-Poll Identifier: <b>CESG-P-2015-09-001
Request to re-start the System Architecture Working Group (SEA-SA)<br>
</b></font><img src=cid:_1_0BCD45B40BCD411C005FBFDEC1257EFA style="border:0px solid;">
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">Results of CESG poll beginning 04 September
2015 and ending 18 September 2015:</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">Abstain: 0 (0%) </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">Approve Unconditionally: 3 (50%)
(Barkley, Shames, Scott) </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">Approve with Conditions: 3 (50%)
(Merri, Behal, Calzolari)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">############################</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">Barkley - Comments: I consider projects
2 and 5 to be of relatively urgent need. It will also be good to
know who the proposed WG chair is.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">############################</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">Merri - The following conditions are raised:
</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">1) The charter seems to mix up together
too many topics that have only marginal relations. I believe that the most
critical task is the "CCSDS Reference Architecture", which is
long awaited (see SM&C WG Open Letter to CCSDS of September 2009),
and this is where the WG should focus on, also in view of the limited resources
available. Please look at the attached edited version of the charter with
Brigitte’s and my comments where we retained the following topics as of
highest priority: <br>
- CCSDS Reference Architecture <br>
- CCSDS Glossary Refresh <br>
and eliminated (which may be done later by requesting specific project
approvals): <br>
- CCSDS XML standards (shouldn't this be the output of the SEA-XSG?) <br>
- RASDS refresh (do we need this? Is it urgent? Who has used/will use it?)
<br>
- CCSDS Registries & Information Model (shouldn't this be the output
of the SEA-SANA?). <br>
In our view the CCSDS Reference Architecture should serve as the reference
for all our WGs, our user community and IOAG. It should also, to a certain
extent, anticipate and apportion future work in line with the “London
Agreement”. <br>
<br>
2) Looking at the list of draft projects (</font><a href=http://cwe.ccsds.org/fm/Lists/Projects/AllOpenChartersWithDraftProjects.aspx><font size=2 color=blue face="Calibri"><u>http://cwe.ccsds.org/fm/Lists/Projects/AllOpenChartersWithDraftProjects.aspx</u></font></a><font size=2 face="Calibri">)
it is not clear how do they match with the tasks of the charter. Also 3
"Reference Architecture" documents look overdone and we think
CCSDS should have only one reference architecture (as a minimum the book
titles are confusing and the charter lacks clarity). Please clarify. <br>
<br>
3) As done for the MP&S WG, the nomination of the chair and deputy
chair cannot be done by means of the draft charter. You should consult
with the CCSDS Agencies, identify valuable candidates, and make a proposal
to the CESG. Please remove the name of the proposed chair. <br>
<br>
4) Expanding on point 3, we are concerned that your proposed participation
as chair of this WG will take away important resources from the SEA AD
role, thus reducing the effectiveness of your work in one or both areas.
In addition and more importantly, we consider a conflict of interest that
the same person is at the same time AD and WG chair within the same area.
<br>
<br>
5) YB section 2.3.3.1 states: "No WG will be initiated by CCSDS unless
a credible resource profile has been prepared and at least two agencies
have agreed to provide the necessary support". We could not find any
of this. Are the manpower figures that you provide in the various projects
agreed with the other agencies? Do they match the CCSDS cost model? <br>
<br>
6) Please provide the concept paper as required by YB section 6.1.3.3.5.
This should also clarify some of the points above and/or commented charter.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">############################</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">Calzolari - Charter - </font><a href="http://cwe.ccsds.org/fm/Lists/Charters/DispForm.aspx?ID=19"><font size=2 color=blue face="Calibri"><u>http://cwe.ccsds.org/fm/Lists/Charters/DispForm.aspx?ID=19</u></font></a><font size=2 face="Calibri">
<br>
With respect to the conditions by MOIMS Area, I want to underline that
I think we all agreed (in San Antonio?) that a concept paper is the needed
document to bridge between real target/schedule and the bare essentiality
of CWE charter/projects. Such a concept paper is therefore very important
to check inter relationship among the proposed projects and they scheduling.
<br>
In particular, it is hard to understand why so heterogeneous projects are
proposed such that the WG would require so many areas of expertise not
necessarily overlapping. <br>
Moreover, it is not possible to understand which projects shall be approved
together with the charter for immediate start and which projects should
actually be included only for later start (i.e. Draft Projects to be eventually
listed at </font><a href=http://cwe.ccsds.org/fm/Lists/Projects/AllOpenChartersWithDraftProjects.aspx><font size=2 color=blue face="Calibri"><u>http://cwe.ccsds.org/fm/Lists/Projects/AllOpenChartersWithDraftProjects.aspx</u></font></a><font size=2 face="Calibri">
). <br>
Note that this splitting should be described in the Concept paper. <br>
With respect to the projects, their schedule seems to be quite inaccurate.
<br>
<br>
It is not clear whether the (Restart) BOF has had any meeting where the
members have approved the proposed charter etc and where Agency representatives
have declared their support to the projects that are going to start at
approval time. <br>
<br>
Was it ever agreed that a resurrected WG keeps the same chairperson(s)?
I think that a call for nomination is required when a WG is restarted.
<br>
<br>
Project 1 - CCSDS Standards Reference Architecture - </font><a href="http://cwe.ccsds.org/fm/Lists/Projects/DispFormDraft.aspx?ID=557"><font size=2 color=blue face="Calibri"><u>http://cwe.ccsds.org/fm/Lists/Projects/DispFormDraft.aspx?ID=557</u></font></a><font size=2 face="Calibri">
<br>
The resources part looks a statement of intents or a call for partnership
that should have verified before submitting the project for immediate start.,
<br>
Book Editor is proposed to be NASA, but there is a request for resources
to other CCSDS Area. <br>
CCSDS Areas cannot provide resources, only Agencies can. If there is a
need for coordination with other Agencies this shall be expressed differently.
If this is a multi area project this should be assigned to a multi area
WG (as e.g. SDLS WG that is actually a SEA + SLS WG). <br>
Prototypes rows shall be empty as N/A. <br>
Start date is in the past (3 August 2015) <br>
<br>
Project 2 - CCSDS XML Guidelines - </font><a href="http://cwe.ccsds.org/fm/Lists/Projects/DispFormDraft.aspx?ID=559"><font size=2 color=blue face="Calibri"><u>http://cwe.ccsds.org/fm/Lists/Projects/DispFormDraft.aspx?ID=559</u></font></a><font size=2 face="Calibri">
<br>
Document number says YB while Document Type is unknown. I think an initial
guess for document type is mandatory as it drives resources. <br>
This looks a project for immediate start (Dec 2015). Did Agencies confirmed
contribution? <br>
<br>
Project 3 - Reference Architecture for Space Data Systems (Issue 2) - </font><a href="http://cwe.ccsds.org/fm/Lists/Projects/DispFormDraft.aspx?ID=556"><font size=2 color=blue face="Calibri"><u>http://cwe.ccsds.org/fm/Lists/Projects/DispFormDraft.aspx?ID=556</u></font></a><font size=2 face="Calibri">
<br>
This looks a project for immediate start. Did Agencies confirmed contribution?
<br>
Starting August 2015 for publication on February 2016 looks strange/unrealistic.
<br>
<br>
Project 4 - Reference Architecture for Space Data Systems (Issue 3) - </font><a href="http://cwe.ccsds.org/fm/Lists/Projects/DispFormDraft.aspx?ID=558"><font size=2 color=blue face="Calibri"><u>http://cwe.ccsds.org/fm/Lists/Projects/DispFormDraft.aspx?ID=558</u></font></a><font size=2 face="Calibri">
<br>
This project should be entered as DRAFT Project for eventual approval at
due time. <br>
<br>
Project 5 - Registry Management Policies - </font><a href="http://cwe.ccsds.org/fm/Lists/Projects/DispFormDraft.aspx?ID=560"><font size=2 color=blue face="Calibri"><u>http://cwe.ccsds.org/fm/Lists/Projects/DispFormDraft.aspx?ID=560</u></font></a><font size=2 face="Calibri">
<br>
Document number says YB while Document Type is unknown. I think an initial
guess for document type is mandatory as it drives resources. <br>
This looks a project for immediate start. Did Agencies confirmed contribution?
<br>
Starting August 2015 for publication on May 2016 looks strange/unrealistic.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">Total Respondents: 6</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">No response was received from the following
Area(s): SOIS</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:
Approved with Conditions </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Once
Conditions are met start CMC Poll </font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">[attachment "SEA SAWG CESG Issues
20Oct15.xlsx" deleted by Mario Merri/esoc/ESA] [attachment "CCSDS
System Architecture Working Group 20Oct15.docx" deleted by Mario Merri/esoc/ESA]
</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">[attachment "blank.gif" deleted
by Mario Merri/esoc/ESA] </font>
<br><PRE>This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee or addressees only.
The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in whole or in part) of its
content is not permitted.
If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system.
Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the sender.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
</PRE>