<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">
<div>Dear Daniele,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I hope all is well with you. I think that during one of our conversations I mentioned that the CESG and the SANA Steering Group (SSG) were looking into the somewhat confusing state of our registries in the SANA. We have noted that there are a number
of issues and overlaps, particularly in the area of organization and person type registries. The attached presentation, "CCSDS SSG Name & Number Registries", describes the problem in significant detail and also spells out how we propose to fix it. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The presentaiton "CCSDS Registry Re-engineering" is the best current description of the form of "what" we propose to do. What we discovered in analyzing the set of CCSDS registries is that there is a set of registries that have to do with the "CCSDS enterprise",
the agencies, observers, affiliates, and the people that they appoint to do certain tasks or that have certain roles. But what we also discovered is that some of these registries are well formed, others less so, but that there were overlaps and gaps. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>We have a proposed plan for clearing all of this up.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The reason why I am contacting you as DAI WG chair, is the "how" we propose to do it. There are several parts to this that need to have CESG review and CMC concurrence. There is one, in particular, that needs WG concurrence. In the case of your MACAO
Blue Book (CCSDS 630x0b1) we wish to leverage the very good work that has already been done to define and create registries for agencies, and agency sub-elements, and for persons with certain roles. The proposed extensions add some fields for unique identifiers
and also a mechanism for adding new roles for identified persons to allow them to manage other registries than just the MACAO. This is a request for your WG to review what we have proposed to see if you can concur with the proposed changes which are in the
attached mark-up. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The related changes we propose require some related edits to other documents. I have drafts of all of these prepared and CESG review is just awaiting some final adjustments:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>SANA YB (CCSDS 313x0y1, SEA/SSG)</div>
<div>SCID BB (CCSDS 320x0b6, CMC / Secretariat)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>And the creation of a new one:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Registry Management Policy (SEA/SSG)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>What these changes do is to update the SANA Yellow Book to require WGs to use (or extend) existing registries where that makes sense, and to tell the SANA, in a timely way, when they are creating any new registries or proposing changes to existing registries.
The key registries are those relating to organizations (agency, observer, affiliate) and to persons (with various roles). The change to the SCID BB is to add a few fields to that spec, including unique object identifiers for spacecraft, and to extend the
current definitions of Agency Representative, the person nominated by an Agency (or Observer) to request changes to the SCID registry. We want to use the general pattern for "Agency Representative" as the way to manage all persons who are assigned (one or
more) roles by their agencies. Thus one person (AR) might have only one Role (<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px;">Agency Rep for SCID</span>) or they might have more than one Role (<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px;">Agency
Rep for SCID, Agency Rep for MACAO,</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px;">
</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px;">MACAO RP submitter).</span></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>After working over these concepts with the SSG, SANA Operator, and CCSDS website team we are convinced that a separate Registry Management Policy will be the best way to approach this overall body of work, so I have prepared a draft of that too. That
still needs some final changes, so I am not sending it now, just the drafts of the SANA, SCID, and MACAO documents and the analysis and re-engineering materials.</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I think you will find that the proposed changes do not affect any of the key fields, contents, or intent of what has already been defined in the MACAO. What they are intended to do it to adopt and extend the existing features so that these core enterprise
registries can be re-used, and extended, by others. Please review these proposed changes with your WG at the earliest opportunity and let us know if there is an issue. We would all prefer to re-use and extend what is there instead of creating a parallel
set of registries, but we can do that if it is deemed necessary.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Very best regards, Peter</div>
<div> </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</body>
</html>