<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 15 (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:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@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="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">CSSM Colleagues,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As some of you may be aware, the current "laissez-faire" policy for CCSDS registries has started to show that it has issues. In particular, one of the issues emerging is definition/creation of registries that have similar semantics but
implied attributes and overlaps. This also has to be taken into context that there is an established registry policy a little more involved for registration of agencies, their points of contacts, and spacecraft identifiers. Accordingly, one of the initiatives
being advanced in CESG is to look at a more thorough/comprehensive/coordinated approach for management of CCSDS registries. I was one of the instigators of this. At the same time there is a bit of a cautionary tale along the lines of "be careful what you wish
for…" :-). As a result of this one of the items of interest is the schedule of services which is about to be sent to the CCSDS Secretariat for formatting as a blue book candidate. As such, the book has come under attention/scrutiny with respect to its current
SANA registries consideration. On the one hand, it can be argued that the book should be allowed to proceed given the current CCSDS registration policy in place. On the other hand it can be argued that this is then continuing to perpetuate and increase the
scope of the registry problem that CCSDS has identified. Along those lines, attached are two presentations. The first presentation contains a compare and contrast of the current registry policy in the schedule of services candidate blue book and that proposed
by the Systems Engineering Area Director, along with some preliminary comments analysis from yours truly. Also attached is more background/the bigger picture with regard to the overall registry situation. I do not propose to go through the presentation to
CESG however, I do want to address what issues and concerns you may have with looking at potentially a different registration policy and the candidate schedule of services blue book. My apologies for not getting this analysis produced earlier but I do look
forward to discussing this at the teleconference tomorrow.<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>
</div>
</body>
</html>