<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;}
@font-face
{font-family:Aptos;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Aptos;
mso-ligatures:standardcontextual;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#467886;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#96607D;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
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="#467886" vlink="#96607D">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Well I was not seein “current implementations” as any level in context of CSS SM. Current implementations may have their own levels as well, so I do not think we should walk that path too far
(danger! Snakes!). So for me, current implementation is current implementation, and CSS SM may have on “its” implementation different levels (if we start with “0” and count up, or start with “1” and count up, I’m fine with both – maybe even calling “basic”
level the level 1 sounds just better – “0” sounds a bit like “nothing” or “it can’t be worse”).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Cheers<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Marcin<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ligatures:none">From:</span></b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ligatures:none"> SMWG <smwg-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Barkley, Erik J (US 3970) via SMWG<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Donnerstag, 13. Februar 2025 21:01<br>
<b>To:</b> CCSDS Service Mgmt WG <smwg@mailman.ccsds.org><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [cssm] Service management levels<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">CSSM Colleagues,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Thinking a bit more about the different service management levels, it occurs to me that maybe we don't want to call the most essential CCSDS interoperability service management specifications
"level 0", but really rather "level 1" (level one). It occurs to me that our various organizations already have service management implementations and in fact really level 0 (level zero) could be used as reference to current inter-operations whereby interoperability
is bilaterally negotiated. I guess it is a question of whether or not we want to draw this contrast. If we do then perhaps calling current implementations level -1 (i.e. level negative/minus one) is not such a good idea. And I think at some point we will
probably need to make such a contrast. I realize this is essentially just semantics, and not anything that really affects what we are working toward with the best practices, but I think it is a consideration in how to present this to the various implementing
organizations. Any thoughts on this?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Best regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">-Erik <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>