<font size=2 face="sans-serif">R E M I N D E R </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">=============</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Dear all,</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I suggest the following approach to
respond to CMC comments</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b><u>General Part</u></b></font>
<br><font size=2 color=red face="sans-serif">To be addressed in the CESG
general presentation to the CMC.</font>
<br><font size=2 color=red face="sans-serif"><b>@ CESG</b> to discuss it
on Monday 17th Nov</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">SUGGESTION 1: the CSEG should be tasked
to periodically revisit the FP items identified in the extended SP as “Future
Work”, so making the FP a live management tool.</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">SUGGESTION 2: the process to integrate
the external requirements in the CCSDS WP, as part of the FP, should be
developed, so that schedules, priorities and resources for the added work
may be discussed and arbitrations be made, in view of the other on-going
or planned
activities.</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">SUGGESTION 3: The structure of the CCSDS
may be revisited taking into account the following:</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">• The
work programme envisaged in each area in the mid to long terms (2020)</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">• Overlap
should be minimised, by fostering reuse across WGs and Areas and by better
understanding the CCSDS work assignments and the organization’s future
objectives</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">• A
reference architecture for the CCSDS standards should be developed and
used as an overall blueprint for the organization to prevent future overlap.</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">SUGGESTION 4: a solution must
be found to generate the RMP automatically after the revisions of the FW
or SP are made.</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">SUGGESTION 5: it would be helpful
if the mapping presented in the RMP is double checked by the AD’s and
validated at CESG level, when instrumented as per suggestion 3.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I suggest that you</font><font size=2 color=red face="sans-serif">
include in your Area presentation the responses to their questions</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 color=red face="sans-serif"><b>@ Peter</b></font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">1. The
standards on security architecture and D-DOR will be completed by 2016.
No other standards are currently approved beyond 2016. Goals achieved?</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">2. SEA
plan of work does contain approved documents for XML schemas although this
is needed in all areas, in particular CS, MOIS and SOIS. Is this an issue?</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">3. SEA
midterm focus (2017) is on timeline exchange (overlap with MO M&C
/ MAL). Issue to be resolved</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">4. SEA
long term plan is to standardise time services; this was discussed a long
time ago in CMC but no decision yet. A decision is needed in order to ensure
resource availability</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">5. Goal
#7 CCSDS Standards Reference Architecture is a project not approved.
This project is considered as high priority and should be started
asap. This decision should be taken by the CMC in the very near future.
6. Security: key management BB is behind
schedule and should terminate 2017. Is this an issue for other WGs (e.g.:
interdependency with SLS / SDLS)?</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">7. XML
SIG is still a SIG while standards should be produced within 2 years: is
there an issue as the WG(s) is (are) still to be created?</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">8. Only
Security and DDOR are approved WGs/Projects; Timelines and XML SIG could
/ should start soon, while not yet present in the FW. </font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif"> In
this context, is it wise to authorize the new Architecture activities (goals
3 and 7) which, in the past have always suffered a lack of resources, in
the proposed schedule? </font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif"> Where
are the priorities? Is there a risk to delay or interfere with one or the
other of the approved / engaged activities?</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">9. Security
and DDOR WGs have no activities identified as part of FP beyond 2016. Is
it anticipated that all goals will then be achieved and the group has no
further activity ?</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 color=red face="sans-serif"><b>@ Nestor</b></font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">1. Goal
5 “Digital Repository Criteria” completed (no current/future work)</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">2. Data
and Metadata External Framework standards and Data Archival and Retrieval
work is ending in 2016. Goals achieved?</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">3. Mid-term
objectives (2017-2018) only for MO services; they are linked to the standards
on technology mapping and binding. The resources needed for this work should
be assessed.</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">4. No
long terms objectives (2019-2020) defined, although MO services are likely
to take longer</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">5. Most
of the MO services BB’s in the CWE are not started and/or are behind schedule.
What is the strategy proposed to progress these projects? Will the IOAG
/ MOSSG inputs on service priorities be considered
to reschedule the parallel tasks?</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">6. Workplan
for Tele-robotics defined?</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif"> NAV
and DAI WGs have no activities identified as part of FP beyond 2016. Is
it anticipated that all goals will then be achieved and the group has no
further activity ?</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 color=red face="sans-serif"><b>@ Erik</b></font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">1. All
activities in the FW are behind schedule for the CSTS WG. Nevertheless,
this group still shows a long list of parallel activities to be conducted.
What is the strategy proposed to progress these projects or,
preferably, to prioritize a few of them so that at
least some CSTS standards may be proposed
to users? </font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">2. Extensible
Terrestrial data Transfer services : approved activities are almost completed
(in 2015). With the exception of Tracking Data CSTS BB no projects
are approved. When and what should be considered
in 2015 onwards related to this goal?</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">3. Generic
File Transfer to be moved to CSS Goal #4. Will this goal have been achieved
on completion of this standard by 2015?</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">4. Service
Management goals defined in the long term, but only 2 documents approved.
Decision required for the approval of these projects on the basis of a
resource assessment.</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">5. CSS
CS-SM projects have target dates in the SP, as part of the FP. Nothing
similar exists in the FW where status and target dates are blank. When
will a tentative schedule be confirmed?</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 color=red face="sans-serif"><b>@ Gippo</b></font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">1. All
WGs have a schedule which minimize the parallel activities. Prioritization
seems to be made upfront.</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">2. Data
compression and SDLS WGs have no activities identified in the RMP as part
of FP beyond 2015 / 2016. However, the FW shows target dates beyond those
(2017 / 2016). Is it anticipated that all goals will then be achieved
and the group has no further activity
?</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">3. Mid-long
term is the Next generation Space Data Link protocol. What are the resources
required for this development by 2018. Are they confirmed?</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">4. Optical
Communications seems to be the main/only longer term activity. Is this
endorsed by the CMC?</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 color=red face="sans-serif"><b>@ Keith</b></font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">1. SIS
Goal 1 “Use of Internet standards” has no associated workplan. Has the
goal been achieved?</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">2. Application
Layer protocols: no work is planed beyond 2015. Has the goal been achieved?</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">3. Goal
#2 solar system Internet: No approved project beyond 2017. What should
be approved to achieve this goal. What are the resources needed? </font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">4. The
FW reflects projects behind schedule and target dates quite earlier than
those in the RMP/SP. An alignment is required.</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">5. Contact
graph and Bundle security projects have target dates in the RMP/SP, as
part of the FP. Nothing similar exists in the FW where status and target
dates are blank. When will a tentative schedule be confirmed?</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 color=red face="sans-serif"><b>@ Chris</b></font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">1. Appl.
Support WGs has no activities identified as part of FP beyond 2015. Is
it anticipated that all goals will then be achieved and the group has no
further activity ?</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">2. The
SOIS Area has only one WG (Wireless) and no activities identified as part
of FP beyond 2017. Is it anticipated that all goals will then be achieved
and the group has no further activity ?</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">3. Should
the group be disbanded earlier and the WG activities be re-allocated to
another area (Wireless SLS?)?</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">4. More
globally, only short term (2014-2015) workplan defined. Is this area required
beyond 2015? Should CCSDS maintain a role in onboard interface standards?</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">5. Future
developments for onboard “Standard Avionics Architectures” were
mentioned in the 2014 CMC spring meeting (SUMO). Is this a viable direction;
should CCSDS get involved in standardising onboard architectures?</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++</font><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>