[CESG] CESG-P-2023-10-004 Approval to publish CCSDS 504.0-B-2, Attitude Data Messages (Blue Book, Issue 2)
CCSDS Secretariat
thomas.gannett at tgannett.net
Wed Dec 20 20:44:01 UTC 2023
Dear CESG Members,
Conditions for approval of CCSDS 504.0-B-2, Attitude Data Messages (Blue Book, Issue 2) have been disposed to the satisfaction of the AD(s) who voted to approve with conditions. The Secretariat will now proceed with CMC polling to authorize publication.
-------------- next part --------------
From: Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2023 4:06 AM
To: thomas.gannett at tgannett.net; david.s.berry at jpl.nasa.gov;
julie.halverson at nasa.gov
Subject: AW: [Secretariat] [EXTERNAL] Re: CESG-P-2023-10-004 Approval to publish
CCSDS 504.0-B-2, Attitude Data Messages (Blue Book, Issue 2)
Categories: Poll Condition Closure
Dear all,
all fine from my side, you can remove my conditions.
Regards,
Tomaso
Von: Thomas Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>
Gesendet: Dienstag, 5. Dezember 2023 17:12
An: 'Berry, David S (US 3920)' <david.s.berry at jpl.nasa.gov>; 'Halverson, Julie (GSFC-5990)'
<julie.halverson at nasa.gov>; de Cola, Tomaso <Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de>
Betreff: RE: [Secretariat] [EXTERNAL] Re: CESG-P-2023-10-004 Approval to publish CCSDS 504.0-B-2,
Attitude Data Messages (Blue Book, Issue 2)
Tomaso: Please respond by return email indicating whether the solution below satisfies the “duplicated
figures pointers” condition. —Tom
>3) page 7-15 I read:
>7.8.7 Figures7-2 7-2 and 7-3 and 7-3
>please remove the duplicated figures pointers
>Response from CCSDS Nav WG: We believe this may be an editorial error introduced by Microsoft
Word software's "Track Changes/Compare Documents" feature. Below is how the text appears in the
"changes accepted" version of the draft submitted to the Secretariat. The Nav WG proposes that the
Secretariat address this matter.
Solution: The duplicated figure numbers are the result of a trick Microsoft plays on unsuspecting users,
in which a field thought to be deleted returns at time of printing. I will search for all instances of
revenant fields and eliminate them.
Logothete, L.L.C.
thomas.gannett at tgannett.net
+1 443 472 0805
From: Secretariat [mailto:secretariat-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] On Behalf Of Berry, David S (US
3920) via Secretariat
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2023 10:56 AM
To: Halverson, Julie (GSFC-5990); Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de
Cc: secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org
Subject: Re: [Secretariat] [EXTERNAL] Re: CESG-P-2023-10-004 Approval to publish CCSDS 504.0-B-2,
Attitude Data Messages (Blue Book, Issue 2)
Hello Tomaso:
The CCSDS Navigation WG has reviewed the conditions you have
placed on publication of the Attitude Data Messages version 2,
and we have the following responses (shown below in red). Please
advise if the proposed responses are satisfactory. Note that I
have only included here the conditions placed by you; I will
respond separately to Jonathan Wilmot. Let me know if you would
also like to be on that thread as well.
Best Regards,
David Berry
Chair, CCSDS Navigation WG
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:
Tomaso de Cola (Approve with Conditions): A few remarks:
1) I read:
3.2.2.1.2 Version 1.0 shall be reserved for the initial
version accepted by the CCSDS as an official Recommended
Standard (‘Blue Book’). Version 2.0 shall be used for
this Blue Book.
I'm wondering whether this statement is still valid once
this book (issue 2) will be published and the previous
issue (1) will get silver status.
Response from the Nav WG: The statement is still
true, because Version 1.0 messages are likely to continue
being exchanged in the future for various reasons
including the time to change operational procedures. The
Nav WG proposes to leave the sentence as is.
2) page 5-2, i read:
b) a single mandatory Metadata section (data about data);
what about "info about data" instead?
Response from CCSDS Nav WG: This definition of the term
"metadata" appears in several of the CCSDS Blue Books
already published by the Navigation WG, including version
1.0 of the ADM. In a search of a few online sources, I
find the term "metadata" defined as both "data about
data" and "information about data" (or "info about
data"). It could thus be argued that the definitions are
effectively synonymous. I thus question whether this
should be a condition for publication of the
standard. The Nav WG proposes to leave the sentence as
is; but if this condition is truly a condition for
publication, we will change it though it does seem to be
an editorial rather than technical comment.
3) page 7-15 I read:
7.8.7 Figures7-2 7-2 and 7-3 and 7-3
please remove the duplicated figures pointers
Response from CCSDS Nav WG: We believe this may be an
editorial error introduced by Microsoft Word software's
"Track Changes/Compare Documents" feature. Below is how
the text appears in the "changes accepted" version of the
draft submitted to the Secretariat. The Nav WG proposes
that the Secretariat address this matter.
"7.8.7 Figures 7-2 and 7-3 illustrate the basic structure
of an NDM combined instantiation. All detail has been
removed from figure 7-2 in order to contrast the single
message ADM with an NDM combined instantiation."
*************************
On 12/1/23, 7:44 AM, "CCSDS Secretariat"
<thomas.gannett at tgannett.net
<mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>> wrote:
Dear Document Rapporteur,
The CESG poll to approve publication of CCSDS 504.0-B-2,
Attitude Data Messages (Blue Book, Issue 2) concluded with
conditions. Please negotiate disposition of the conditions
directly with the AD(s) who voted to approve with conditions and
CC the Secretariat on all related correspondence.
CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2023-10-004 Approval to publish
CCSDS 504.0-B-2, Attitude Data Messages (Blue Book, Issue 2)
Results of CESG poll beginning 31 October 2023 and ending 30
November 2023:
Abstain: 0 (0%)
Approve Unconditionally: 3 (60%) (Fischer, Shames, Aguilar
Sanchez)
Approve with Conditions: 2 (40%) (Cola, Wilmot)
Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:
Tomaso de Cola (Approve with Conditions): A few remarks:
1) I read:
3.2.2.1.2 Version 1.0 shall be reserved for the initial version
accepted by the CCSDS as an official Recommended Standard (‘Blue
Book’). Version 2.0 shall be used for this Blue Book.
I'm wondering whether this statement is still valid once this
book (issue 2) will be published and the previous issue (1) will
get silver status.
2) page 5-2, i read:
b) a single mandatory Metadata section (data about data);
what about "info about data" instead?
3) page 7-15 I read:
7.8.7 Figures7-2 7-2 and 7-3 and 7-3
please remove the duplicated figures pointers
Jonathan Wilmot (Approve with Conditions): 1) The LunaNet LNIS
document is defining Attitude Data Messages, it may be important
that these messages can be mapped to messages that are exchanged
between spacecraft and/or space surface systems such as the MSG-
G4 Sorbit Ephemeris & clock correction message. The use cases
are similar.
2) I do not see any constraints on parameter values defined in
the schemas. Parameter constraints may be mission specific and
should be exchanged as well so that parameters can be checked
prior to use in an automated way.
The above may be out of scope, but should be considered.
Just a comment, the recomndation for ASCII in section 2.1.2 is
outdated. I would hope that Attitude Data Messages are not being
generated by text editors or word processors with humans
verifying by looking at printouts.
Total Respondents: 5
No response was received from the following Area(s):
CSS
SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with Conditions
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate CMC poll after conditions
have been addressed
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
From: Secretariat <secretariat-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> on behalf of Wilmot,
Jonathan J. (GSFC-580.0)[VANTAGE SYSTEMS INC] via Secretariat
<secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2023 11:13 AM
To: Berry, David S (JPL-3920)[JPL Employee]
Cc: secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org
Subject: Re: [Secretariat] [EXTERNAL] Re: CESG-P-2023-10-004 Approval to publish
CCSDS 504.0-B-2, Attitude Data Messages (Blue Book, Issue 2)
Attachments: Untitled attachment 00016.txt
Categories: Poll Condition Closure
David,
Understood. I consider the conditions satisfied and the document ready for publishing. Sorry for the
bad example.
I am just trying to increase the level of automation where message exchange mechanisms are machine
parseable and can be constraint checked without requiring humans in the loop. There are several CCSDS
working groups creating standard messages specified in XML with some groups adding constraints and
others not. Please consider for future books.
Kind regards,
Jonathan Wilmot
CCSDS SOIS Area Director
GSFC DTN Systems Engineer
cFS Architecture
Cell 301-751-2658
From: Berry, David S (US 3920) <david.s.berry at jpl.nasa.gov>
Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2023 10:56 AM
To: Wilmot, Jonathan J. (GSFC-580.0)[VANTAGE SYSTEMS INC] <jonathan.j.wilmot at nasa.gov>
Cc: secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: CESG-P-2023-10-004 Approval to publish CCSDS 504.0-B-2, Attitude Data
Messages (Blue Book, Issue 2)
Jonathan:
I guess I would have to say that for the specific keyword you
selected (which was intended to indicate the PURPOSE of the
maneuver design, not a value), there is no way to provide that
maximum value (or minimum, for that matter). Information of that
nature would have to be conveyed to a consumer of the message
via supplementary material; to a great extent, we depend upon
producers and consumers of the message to understand the
constraints that exist in their spacecraft before creating or
consuming a message. The standard (to which the schema conforms)
was not designed to convey minima/maxima ranges for every
potentially applicable keyword. The condition you have proposed
in this Approval to Publish would necessitate a major overhaul
of the document, essentially starting over, which I believe is
infeasible.
I would ask you to consider if this is truly a condition of
publishing the document... as I stated initially, "This comment
seems too general to be actionable; it's not clear how to
respond to this."
Please advise...
Thank you,
David
From: "Wilmot, Jonathan J. (GSFC-580.0)[VANTAGE SYSTEMS INC]"
<jonathan.j.wilmot at nasa.gov>
Date: Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 1:43 PM
To: David Berry <david.s.berry at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: "secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org" <secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: CESG-P-2023-10-004 Approval to publish CCSDS 504.0-B-2,
Attitude Data Messages (Blue Book, Issue 2)
David,
I agree with the response to 1 and 3, consider them closed. Number 2 might need a short discussion.
It sounds like there are some constraints in "Common" schema. For example, I was looking for
something in the schema that allowed a mission to state a maximum allowed - “Spin rate adjust” (Table
5-7: ACM Data: Maneuver Specification) such that the message creator would check that before
sending. Does the schema allow the example use case?
Kind regards,
Jonathan Wilmot
CCSDS SOIS Area Director
GSFC DTN Systems Engineer
cFS Architecture
Cell 301-751-2658
From: Berry, David S (US 3920) <david.s.berry at jpl.nasa.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, December 5, 2023 11:17 AM
To: Wilmot, Jonathan J. (GSFC-580.0)[VANTAGE SYSTEMS INC] <jonathan.j.wilmot at nasa.gov>
Cc: secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: CESG-P-2023-10-004 Approval to publish CCSDS 504.0-B-2, Attitude Data
Messages (Blue Book, Issue 2)
Hello Jonathan:
The CCSDS Navigation WG has reviewed the conditions you have
placed on publication of the Attitude Data Messages version 2,
and we have the following responses (shown below in red). Please
advise if the proposed responses are satisfactory. Note that I
have only included here the conditions placed by you; I have
responded separately to Tomaso de Cola. Let me know if you would
also like to be on that thread as well.
Best Regards,
David Berry
Chair, CCSDS Navigation WG
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:
Jonathan Wilmot (Approve with Conditions):
1) The LunaNet LNIS document is defining Attitude Data
Messages, it may be important that these messages can be
mapped to messages that are exchanged between spacecraft
and/or space surface systems such as the MSG-G4 Sorbit
Ephemeris & clock correction message. The use cases are
similar.
Response from CCSDS Nav WG: Our understanding is that the
LunaNet Interoperbility Specification is still a somewhat
unfinished work, and we thus believe it would be
premature to delay the Attitude Data Messages update at
this point. The Nav WG proposes to publish the current
Pink Book "as is", and prepare Corrigenda or other
official updates as applicable once the LNIS is more
fully elaborated.
2) I do not see any constraints on parameter values
defined in the schemas. Parameter constraints may be
mission specific and should be exchanged as well so that
parameters can be checked prior to use in an automated
way.
Response from CCSDS Nav WG: This comment seems too
general to be actionable; it's not clear how to respond
to this. Many of the data types have applicable ranges of
values specified in the "Common" schema where most of the
data types are defined. In the absence of more specific
guidance, we propose no action.
The above may be out of scope, but should be considered.
Just a comment, the recomndation for ASCII in section
2.1.2 is outdated. I would hope that Attitude Data
Messages are not being generated by text editors or word
processors with humans verifying by looking at printouts.
Response from CCSDS Nav WG: Noted. Some sections of the
cited section are clearly obsolete. We do trust that
implementers of the standard will do so in accordance
with their institutional practices, which do probably
exclude creation of the messages "being generated by text
editors or word processors". Thank you for the
suggestion. We will submit a revised statement to the
Secretariat:
Original Statement: For example, when files or data
objects are created using text editors or word
processors, ASCII character-based attitude data format
representations are necessary. They are also useful in
transferring text files between heterogeneous computing
systems, because the ASCII character set is nearly
universally used and is interpretable by all popular
systems.
Revised Statement: For example, when ASCII files or data
objects are created using text editors or word
processors, ASCII character-based attitude data format
representations are necessary. They are also useful in
transferring text files between heterogeneous computing
systems, because the ASCII character set is nearly
universally used and is interpretable by all popular
systems.
*************************
On 12/1/23, 7:44 AM, "CCSDS Secretariat"
<thomas.gannett at tgannett.net
<mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>> wrote:
Dear Document Rapporteur,
The CESG poll to approve publication of CCSDS 504.0-B-2,
Attitude Data Messages (Blue Book, Issue 2) concluded with
conditions. Please negotiate disposition of the conditions
directly with the AD(s) who voted to approve with conditions and
CC the Secretariat on all related correspondence.
CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2023-10-004 Approval to publish
CCSDS 504.0-B-2, Attitude Data Messages (Blue Book, Issue 2)
Results of CESG poll beginning 31 October 2023 and ending 30
November 2023:
Abstain: 0 (0%)
Approve Unconditionally: 3 (60%) (Fischer, Shames, Aguilar
Sanchez)
Approve with Conditions: 2 (40%) (Cola, Wilmot)
Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:
Tomaso de Cola (Approve with Conditions): A few remarks:
1) I read:
3.2.2.1.2 Version 1.0 shall be reserved for the initial version
accepted by the CCSDS as an official Recommended Standard (‘Blue
Book’). Version 2.0 shall be used for this Blue Book.
I'm wondering whether this statement is still valid once this
book (issue 2) will be published and the previous issue (1) will
get silver status.
2) page 5-2, i read:
b) a single mandatory Metadata section (data about data);
what about "info about data" instead?
3) page 7-15 I read:
7.8.7 Figures7-2 7-2 and 7-3 and 7-3
please remove the duplicated figures pointers
Jonathan Wilmot (Approve with Conditions): 1) The LunaNet LNIS
document is defining Attitude Data Messages, it may be important
that these messages can be mapped to messages that are exchanged
between spacecraft and/or space surface systems such as the MSG-
G4 Sorbit Ephemeris & clock correction message. The use cases
are similar.
2) I do not see any constraints on parameter values defined in
the schemas. Parameter constraints may be mission specific and
should be exchanged as well so that parameters can be checked
prior to use in an automated way.
The above may be out of scope, but should be considered.
Just a comment, the recomndation for ASCII in section 2.1.2 is
outdated. I would hope that Attitude Data Messages are not being
generated by text editors or word processors with humans
verifying by looking at printouts.
Total Respondents: 5
No response was received from the following Area(s):
CSS
SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with Conditions
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate CMC poll after conditions
have been addressed
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
More information about the CESG
mailing list