From: Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de Sent: Friday, March 15, 2024 4:26 AM To: Mehran.Sarkarati@esa.int; Erik.Barkley@jpl.nasa.gov Cc: Daniel.Fischer@esa.int; Klaus-Juergen.Schulz@esa.int; thomas.gannett@tgannett.net Subject: AW: Conditions from CESG-P-2023-12-002 Approval to publish CCSDS 521.0-B-3, Mission Operations Message Abstraction Layer (Blue Book, Issue 3) Hi Mehran, I’ve checked the new version of blue and yellow books and I see all my previous comments have been addressed, so that now my points can be considered solved. Good work! Best, Tomaso From: Barkley, Erik J (US 3970) Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2024 8:13 PM To: Mehran Sarkarati; Tomaso de Cola Cc: Daniel Fischer; Klaus-Juergen Schulz; CCSDS Secretariat Subject: RE: Conditions from CESG-P-2023-12-002 Approval to publish CCSDS 521.0-B-3, Mission Operations Message Abstraction Layer (Blue Book, Issue 3) Dear Mehran, Thank you for the updated information. The conditions I placed on the publication poll for the recommendation are hereby retired. Best regards, -Erik From: Mehran Sarkarati Sent: Friday, March 8, 2024 9:31 To: Barkley, Erik J (US 3970) ; Tomaso de Cola Cc: Daniel Fischer ; Klaus-Juergen Schulz ; CCSDS Secretariat Subject: [EXTERNAL] Conditions from CESG-P-2023-12-002 Approval to publish CCSDS 521.0-B-3, Mission Operations Message Abstraction Layer (Blue Book, Issue 3) Dear Erik, dear Tomaso, Please find attached the updated MAL book and the corresponding YB with the updates performed in response to the conditions you had raised. Please find below, in blue the resolution of your raised conditions. I would be grateful if you could confirm that your condition is satisfied with the implemented changes. Best Regards Mehran Erik Barkley (Approve with Conditions): 1. Pg 6-1, In Sections 6.2 and 6.3.1, the SANA Registry URLs are broken/return HTTP 404 error -- please correct. >> SANA registry was updated with the help of Tom Gannett and Julien Bernard with the missing files. Please note that due to technical restrictions of SANA, the files are not accessible prior to publication of the book. After the publication, they will be accessible under the correct link that is used in the book: https://sanaregistry.org/r/moschemas Before the publication the files are available here: https://beta.sanaregistry.org/r/moschemas/ 2. RID Spreadsheets: Please indicate final dispositions in spreadsheets -- for example, RIDs CNES- 30, CNES-33, DLR-026, ESA-CC-002 and others indicates "Discuss with WG" or "Needs discussion in the WG" as the Disposition. In some cases, it is possible to infer that the RID was accepted by the additional comments, but in other cases there is just simply "Done" for the "Resolution" and it is not clear if the RID was accepted or rejected. >> Please find attached the updated Excel files with the final resolution for all RIDs. Tomaso de Cola (Approve with Conditions): 1. There is a problem with the numbering of normative references, but this can be easily fixed. >>Tom has corrected the normative reference numbering problem in the source document. (see also his email on 13.02.). 2) Section 8 is about a conformance matrix, but isn't this object of Annex A about NPICS? >> Indeed, the matrix was an unnecessary repetition in Section 8 and in Annex A3. Thank you for spotting it. We have removed Section 8 and kept the Annex A3. 3) NPICS matrix in A-3 and following is not aligned with what provided in CCSDS A20.1-Y-1. Practically speaking I'd have expected to find a numbering for all identified features/options, which is not indicated. Also, the reference to the location where an option/feature is specified missing. >> A3, A4, and A5 provide the list of the MAL interaction patterns (these are all mandatory), the MAL data types (all mandatory) and the MAL errors (all mandatory). They are the core constructs of MAL.These are the items that must be present in a functioning MAL, so not really features in a specific place. We have add numbering on A3, A4 and A5 to make it clearer. Also in the YB we have added an explicit section 7 to provide a clear mapping to the tests (see the answer to the point 4). 4) The interoperability testing report (yellow book) apparently does not develop specific tests to show the correct implementtion of the options/features identified dntified in the NPICS of the compaionin drat blue book. eluw book. >> YB has been updated. We added a dedicated chapter 7 for mapping of the tests as requested. From: CCSDS Secretariat Date: Thursday, 1. February 2024 at 23:33 To: Mehran Sarkarati Cc: Erik.Barkley@jpl.nasa.gov , Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de , Coelho, César Subject: Re: CESG-P-2023-12-002 Approval to publish CCSDS 521.0-B-3, Mission Operations Message Abstraction Layer (Blue Book, Issue 3) Dear Document Rapporteur, The CESG poll to approve publication of CCSDS 521.0-B-3, Mission Operations Message Abstraction Layer (Blue Book, Issue 3) 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-2023-12-002 Approval to publish CCSDS 521.0-B-3, Mission Operations Message Abstraction Layer (Blue Book, Issue 3) Results of CESG poll beginning 29 December 2023 and ending 26 January 2024: Abstain: 0 (0%) Approve Unconditionally: 3 (60%) (Shames, Aguilar Sanchez, Wilmot) Approve with Conditions: 2 (40%) (Barkley, Cola) Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%) CONDITIONS/COMMENTS: Erik Barkley (Approve with Conditions): 1) Pg 6-1, In Sections 6.2 and 6.3.1, the SANA Registry URLs are broken/return HTTP 404 error -- please correct. 2) RID Spreadsheets: Please indicate final dispositions in spreadsheets -- for example, RIDs CNES-30, CNES-33, DLR-026, ESA-CC-002 and others indicates "Discuss with WG" or "Needs discussion in the WG" as the Disposition. In some cases, it is possible to infer that the RID was accepted by the additional comments, but in other cases there is just simply "Done" for the "Resolution" and it is not clear if the RID was accepted or rejected. Tomaso de Cola (Approve with Conditions): 1) There is a problem with the numbering of normative references, but this can be easily fixed. 2) Section 8 is about a conformance matrix, but isn't this object of Annex A about NPICS? 3) NPICS matrix in A-3 and following is not aligned with what provided in CCSDS A20.1-Y-1. Practically speaking I'd have expected to find a numbering for all identified features/options, which is not indicated. Also, the reference to the location where an option/feature is specified missing. 4) The interoperability testing report (yellow book) apparently does not develop specific tests to show the correct implementtion of the options/features identified dntified in the NPICS of the compaionin drat blue book. eluw book. In thi regard, mfc Total Respondents: 5 No response was received from the following Area(s): MOIMS SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with Conditions PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate CMC poll after conditions have been addressed * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * This message is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. It may contain proprietary information and/or protected content. Any unauthorised disclosure, use, retention or dissemination is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately. ESA applies appropriate organisational measures to protect personal data, in case of data privacy queries, please contact the ESA Data Protection Officer (dpo@esa.int).