From: Shames, Peter M (US 312B) Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 2:38 PM To: Thomas Gannett; 'Alliss, Randy [US] (SP)' Cc: 'Edwards, Bernard L. (GSFC-5600)'; 'Braatz, Lena [USA]'; Barkley, Erik J (US 3970) Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: updated magenta book Hi Tom and Randy, I approve of this document, as modified. I look forward to seeing the XML data exchange Blue Book and suggest that you consult with the MOIMS Nav WG to see if there are any hints you can get about creating such a document and formatting the data. They may also have some terms defined that you can leverage and well as guidance in creating any new ones. A last comment for the future is that we have created in the SANA a set of registries that can be leveraged. This includes the: Organization, Contact, and Service Site and Aperture registries. My assumption is that any “Optical Ground Station (OGS) sites” that are either created and instrumented for site evaluation purposes, or are “a potential OGS site” with instrumentation, or are actual OGS sites with deployed optical communications capabilities (and instrumentation), are all “Service Sites”. They will belong to some agency (or other organization), will have defined services (at least gathering and delivering data), and will have a defined point of contact. The Registry Management Policy (RMP, CCSDS 131.1-Y-2) provides details on these SANA registries. Within the Nav WG (and CSS Area as well) they are already starting to populate these registries for other space communications sites (CSS) and for various kinds of Nav (and D-DOR) data service providers. I would expect your future Blue Book to reference these registries as they are intended to be used, and to define a new “OGS site” role, and possibly a new OGS Data site” role as well. Not to scare you off, this is just an sort of “head’s up”. We can discuss this further as that time nears. Thanks, Peter From: Tom Gannett Date: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 11:06 AM To: "'Alliss, Randy [US] (SP)'" Cc: Bernie Edwards , Lena Braatz , Peter Shames , Erik Barkley Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: updated magenta book Peter, Erik: Please indicate via return email that your approval conditions are satisfied. —Tom Logothete, L.L.C. thomas.gannett@tgannett.net +1 443 472 0805 From: Alliss, Randy [US] (SP) [mailto:RANDALL.ALLISS@ngc.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 1:55 PM To: thomas.gannett@tgannett.net Cc: Edwards, Bernard L. (GSFC-5600); 'Braatz, Lena [USA]'; Peter.M.Shames@jpl.nasa.gov; erik.j.barkley@jpl.nasa.gov Subject: updated magenta book Hi Tom, Enclosed please find a copy of the revised magenta book based on Peter's and Eric's inputs. We should be good to go now. thanks, Randy -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Gannett Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2021 2:04 PM To: bernard.l.edwards@nasa.gov; Alliss, Randy [US] (SP) Cc: Erik.Barkley@jpl.nasa.gov; Peter.M.Shames@jpl.nasa.gov Subject: EXT :Re: CESG-P-2021-08-003 Approval to publish CCSDS 141.1-M-1, Atmospheric Characterization and Forecasting for Optical Link Operations (Magenta Book, Issue 1) Dear Document Rapporteur, The CESG poll to approve publication of CCSDS 141.1-M-1, Atmospheric Characterization and Forecasting for Optical Link Operations (Magenta Book, Issue 1) 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-2021-08-003 Approval to publish CCSDS 141.1-M-1, Atmospheric Characterization and Forecasting for Optical Link Operations (Magenta Book, Issue 1) Results of CESG poll beginning 31 August 2021 and ending 14 September 2021: Abstain: 0 (0%) Approve Unconditionally: 4 (66.67%) (Merri, Duhaze, Aguilar Sanchez, Wilmot) Approve with Conditions: 2 (33.33%) (Barkley, Shames) Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%) CONDITIONS/COMMENTS: Erik Barkley (Approve with Conditions): General Comment: The book does a great job identifying the instrumentation needed, the data to be collected, and use case scenarios. Questions: 1) Why not make the informative XML schema normative? As CCSDS practice to address establishment of a capability for atmospheric characterization suitable for forecasting in support of optical communiation, it seems that some format for exchanging such characterization and forecasting data is also needed to completely define the best practice. 2) Alternatively, perhaps the exchange format (XML Schema definition or equivalent) could be developed as separate CCSDS bluebook and referenced here? (This would seem to be on par with the NAV WG NDM recommendation). Or are there some industry standards that could be utilized here? Condition: Please address the lack of normative data exchange format. Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions): As much as I would like to be able to approve this recommended practice I find it confusing and to be a somewhat exasperating collection of different styles. It does have aspects of a recommended / best practice, and it also reads, in that regard, like a set of requirements. At the same time, it could actually include a formalized XML spec for interoperably exchanging data, but what is provided is something that looks like an incomplete example that is non-normative. Probably a separate document that formalizes this is called for. It could register these OCS as stations in the Service Site & Aperture registry, but it does not even mention SANA. Finally, and this is a nit, it talks exclusively about space to ground communications and seems, thereby, to rule out ground to space. Total Respondents: 6 No response was received from the following Area(s): SIS SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with Conditions PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate CMC poll after conditions have been addressed * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Thomas Gannett thomas.gannett@tgannett.net +1 443 472 0805