[cssm] [EXTERNAL] CSSM: Service Agreement Parameters - Update of the presentation from Fall Meetings 2023

Fri Jan 19 07:25:37 UTC 2024

Dear All,
I hope my understanding is correct and the Service Agreement shall serve the purpose to characterize and ultimately agree configurations for a set of services (configuration profiles) provided by an ESLT or perhaps even flying assets. If that is the case, I suggest basing individual service definitions on the Functional Resource Model (FRM). Such service definitions can capture the semantics of the service on top of  the semantic definitions of the underling Functional Resources (which are available to provide further information). As a bonus, the configuration parameters of the complete services are ‘falling out’ of the Functional Resources forming the service. See the below example of a Telemetry Service defined in terms of FRs.

[cid:image001.png at 01DA4AAE.4EA370F0]

Ultimately you may need Functional Resource Instances to capture the configuration of individual Functional Resource Instances (e.g. several FR instances of the same type to configure redundant modems). This feature is now supported by an M2M transformation from FRM (xmi) to FRIM (ecore and xsd): https://github.com/esa/ccsds-css-frm-editor

I think such an approach can ensure real consistency. Service Agreements use then by definition parameters consistent with those monitoring and configuration parameters defined by FRM and made available with CSTS Monitored Data Service. Of course, you can also think of capturing available control directives in a Service Agreement, which you can invoke e.g. by means of CSTS Service Control.

Best regards,
Holger

From: SMWG <smwg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> on behalf of Shames, Peter M (US 312B) via SMWG <smwg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Date: Thursday, 18. January 2024 at 18:45
To: Marcin.Gnat at dlr.de <Marcin.Gnat at dlr.de>, smwg at mailman.ccsds.org <smwg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: Re: [cssm] [EXTERNAL] CSSM: Service Agreement Parameters - Update of the presentation from Fall Meetings 2023
Hi Marcin, et al,

It’s great that you guys have started to develop this Service Agreement framework.  I think it should be of a lot of use and that what you have produced is a good start.

That said, I have a few comments and observations that will undoubtedly come up when this standard crosses my desk as part of a CESG review.  So I thought I’d toss them out now, for your consideration.

Comments

  1.  This draft makes mention of a variety of objects for which we have existing (if somewhat incompletely filled out) SANA registries, but there is no mention of SANA anywhere.  I believe that all of the following should be referenced, and that the standard should clarify how these are to be used, extended if needed, or substituted only where it is essential to do so.

     *   https://sanaregistry.org/r/organizations/
     *   https://sanaregistry.org/r/contacts/
     *   https://sanaregistry.org/r/service_management_entity_types/
     *   https://sanaregistry.org/r/service_sites_apertures/
     *   https://sanaregistry.org/r/spacecraft/
     *   https://sanaregistry.org/r/spacecraftid/

  1.  This seems to be exclusively focused on “standard” Earth to S/C services, but we are already in an era where there are existing “space based services”, like the Mars orbiting missions, and the Lunar mission set, with “standardized” relay operations, is already in development.  Is there a plan for addressing these other classes of missions?
  2.  Is there a plan to build in extensibility for new service types as these are developed?  This might include, for instance, Lunar PNT services, DTN services, and DTN to IP “protocol bridging”.

I’d be happy to discuss this at more length when you are ready.

Thanks, Peter

From: SMWG <smwg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> on behalf of SMWG <smwg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Reply-To: "Marcin.Gnat at dlr.de" <Marcin.Gnat at dlr.de>
Date: Thursday, January 18, 2024 at 12:49 AM
To: SMWG <smwg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [cssm] CSSM: Service Agreement Parameters - Update of the presentation from Fall Meetings 2023

Dear all,

I had a small task to update the collection of the Service Agreement parameters, which I presented during Fall Meetings 2023. During this presentation we had a discussion and number of comments/changes, which now I implemented. As you can see I still have there two or so “TBCs”. Except that I think it looks good for the first schema version for SA File type. I will try to set it up until our next teleconference, but not promising it….;-)

Cheers
Marcin
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 at esa.int).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/smwg/attachments/20240119/092f400a/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1703174 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/smwg/attachments/20240119/092f400a/attachment-0001.png>