<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: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=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (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;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
</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=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=WordSection1>
<p class=MsoNormal>CCSDS Colleagues,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Following is the draft resolution from CMC with regard to
the RA-SIG activity. As you can see, the SIG continues to be in business but
with a somewhat different focus. I am currently in the process of
drafting a plan of how RA-SIG will proceed based upon the recommendation, and
will be providing a response to CMC in the not-too-distant future accordingly.
May I request that you please take a look at the resolution and provide any
comments you may have? If possible could any comments be made available by
Monday of next week? (12 July). If you would like a day or two more please
do not hesitate to let me know but I would like to ensure that response to the
CMC resolution are initiated in a timely manner. Thank you in advance for your
inputs.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>With regard to point 6, ESA has already began efforts with
regard to initiating a contract for the activity indicated.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Best regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>-Erik<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><u>CMC-A-2010-06-Resolution 2:</u></b> <br>
The CMC commends the RA-SIG for the significant accomplishments and progress
that has been made since its formation at the Fall 2009 CMC meeting. While the
current approach has the clear potential to produce a comprehensive solution if
sufficient resources are applied, the CMC is concerned that the proposed scope
of work is too broad for the currently available resources and consequently the
work plan needs to be narrowed in order to be achievable within a realistic
resource envelope. <br>
Accordingly, and as the top priority, the CMC resolves that the RA-SIG should
first start with the analysis previously generated by the SEA AD. They
should focus on reaching agreement on that set of specific issues, and provide
recommendations to resolve issues where CCSDS working groups are working on
overlapping solutions and/or are conflicting with each other. <br>
<br>
As a second priority the RA-SIG should concurrently develop a basic CCSDS
reference architecture for mission operations, but they should limit that work
to focus on the application service architecture (i.e., applications above the
network layer). <br>
<br>
Specifically, to proceed on both priorities, the CMC resolves that the RA-SIG
group should: <br>
<span style='font-size:10.0pt'>1. Ignore the data
communications aspects; assume that we have at least a Network layer platform
for transfer of data among the ground elements (TCP-UDP/IP) and between the
ground elements and the spacecraft (BP, IP).</span> <br>
<span style='font-size:10.0pt'>2. Assume that we may have
several messaging protocols for transfer of data among the ground elements and
that AMS is used between the ground elements and the spacecraft </span><br>
<span style='font-size:10.0pt'>3. Focus on the
architecture and organization of CCSDS Mission Operations <u>applications</u> that
run on the Messaging/Network layer platform.</span> <br>
<span style='font-size:10.0pt'>4. Start with the SM&C
MO architecture. Modify it as necessary to reach consensus on an agreed
taxonomy of CCSDS mission operations applications that need to interoperate.
Achieve this by integrating RA-SIG and SM&C architecture personnel as
necessary to reach a consensus.</span> <br>
<span style='font-size:10.0pt'>5. Not delay the processing
or approval of CCSDS books that have almost completed processing, but it is OK
to delay CCSDS books that are in relatively early stages. </span> <br>
<span style='font-size:10.0pt'>6. Apply the resulting
candidate mission operations application interoperability architecture to a
well-known use case, e.g., cooperative ESA/NASA Mars missions in 2016 and 2018,
to discover its robustness.</span> <br>
<span style='font-size:10.0pt'>7. Report the results at
the Fall 2010 meeting.</span> <br>
<br>
The CMC recognizes that some of the overlap issues will require more time than
6 months. But by the Fall 2010 meeting, the group should show significant
progress, including solid technical consensus on resolving many of the overlap
issues. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>