<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Georgia;
panose-1:2 4 5 2 5 4 5 2 3 3;}
@font-face
{font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT;
panose-1:2 2 6 3 5 4 5 2 3 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:TimesNewRomanPS;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:855728957;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-1052742546 67698705 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-text:"%1\)";
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:1077091744;
mso-list-template-ids:2022060458;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Hi Erik, Gippo, et al,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">While reviewing the PID resolutions that Erik accepted, and marking them green to signify that they are, in fact, accepted, I realized that one of them requires further work. Please review row 42: 313.2-Y-2,
EJB 4, "How to use registries during testing". The current "resolution" asks for specific feedback "Please provide a succinct statement of what you think this would look like. The intent was to adhere to the CCSDS A02.1-Y-4 language in sec 6.2.6, approval
criteria and interoperability testing."<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">I'd like for Erik and the other CESG members to propose some language for this interoperability testing requirement that you would find acceptable. The current text in this section, 3.2.14, says this:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"TimesNewRomanPS",serif">3.2.14
</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT">Every Working Group that defines or modifies a registry shall use that registry during any interoperability testing that is required prior to publication of the standard.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT">NOTE – This does not necessarily require exercise of any programmatic interfaces as part of interoperability testing, but it does require the registry to exist, be populated
with relevant data, and be used for its intended purpose during testing. </span>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Once this is resolved the only remaining open issues are those that Gippo raised. Gippo, can we ask you to review these proposed PID resolutions and either accept them or propose alternative wordings?<o:p></o:p></span></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Thanks, Peter<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><b><span style="color:black">From: </span>
</b><span style="color:black">Erik Barkley <erik.j.barkley@jpl.nasa.gov><br>
<b>Date: </b>Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 4:51 PM<br>
<b>To: </b>Peter Shames <peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov><br>
<b>Cc: </b>CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg@mailman.ccsds.org><br>
<b>Subject: </b>RE: Revisions to the three SANA documents as the result of the CESG review and PID resolution<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Georgia",serif">Peter,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Georgia",serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Georgia",serif">With respect to the conditions/PIDs I raised on these documents I am okay moving ahead as indicated in the spreadsheet attached in your original email.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Georgia",serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Georgia",serif">Best regards,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Georgia",serif">-Erik</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> CESG <cesg-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Shames, Peter M (US 312B) via CESG<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, April 9, 2020 14:51<br>
<b>To:</b> CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg@mailman.ccsds.org><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [EXTERNAL] [CESG] Revisions to the three SANA documents as the result of the CESG review and PID resolution<br>
<b>Importance:</b> High</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Dear CESG members,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">As I think you are all aware, the recent CESG review of the three draft SANA document produced a set of PIDs. We had one CESG telecon a week ago that resolved all of the PIDs for
the SANA Procedures (CCSDS 313.0-Y). These resolutions affected some of the PIDs on the other two docs as well, but we do not yet have complete closure. We are waiting for agreement, or follow-up, from Erik Barkley and Gippo Calzolari. We expect to resolve
this via email.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">During the CESG discussion a concern was raised that the workflow for registry approval and promotion was not as agreed (see row 17). After analysis it became evident that there are
some dis-connects between the way that the this work flow is described in the <span style="color:black">
SANA Procedures (CCSDS 313.0-Y) and in the Registry Management Policy (RMP, CCSDS 313.1-Y) versus how they are described in the Procedures for SANA Registry Specification (PSRS, CCSDS 313.2-Y). As Mario pointed out, maintaining consistency does take diligence.</span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">After analyzing these three documents it is pretty clear to me that the workflow captured in the PSRS is disjoint from how it is described in the SANA Procedures and the
RMP. That was not the case in the original documents, as submitted for processing. I have prepared a set of edits to the PSRS that rectifies this and this is now being reviewed by the SSG. There are some changes, but they are not extensive, and they have
been reviewed with the SANA Operator.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Meanwhile, I have attached the latest edits to the PID tracking spreadsheet here. With Mario's concurrence we now just have the EJB and GPC proposed resolutions (column
J) to reach closure on. I ask you to review the tab labelled "Summary of Final Edits". This includes the following:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3">
<![if !supportLists]><span style="color:black"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">1)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">All of the items that we reviewed last week that were not initially accepted and needed discussion, and the
</span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#70AD47">agreed dispositions from last week marked in green like this</span></b><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3">
<![if !supportLists]><span style="color:black"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">2)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">All of the items that were not initially accepted, and that we did not get to review last week, with proposed dispositions are in black text in Col J, along with some
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:red">added notes</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3">
<![if !supportLists]><span style="color:black"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">3)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">For completeness I added in all of the items from the original set of PIDs that were initially accepted and require document edits. These are highlighted in
<span style="background:lime;mso-highlight:lime">green</span> in Col C and the already agreed dispositions are in Col H, also
</span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#70AD47">marked in green</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">.</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">This was done so that the complete set of changes for all documents is in one place. The only exceptions were those where more extensive edits were needed, as in the PSRS
issues just mentioned (row 17 & 34) and the changes to the CCSDS Org & Proc, A02x1y4, which have not yet been processed (row 26). These are highlighted in
<span style="background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">yellow</span>. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">For anyone who is interested, I have the files representing the original PID submissions, with each of the items broken out and identified as to how they are dispositioned
(or proposed) as captured in this master spreadsheet. Ask me if you want to see this for traceability.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">In order to move ahead with this I would like to ask Eric and Gippo to review their PIDs and indicate if there are any that they disagree with. Can I ask that this
be done by next Tuesday, 14 April?</span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Thanks, Peter</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>