[Cesg-all] Results of CESG Poll closing 18 September 2015 - System Architecture Working group re-start
Mario.Merri at esa.int
Mario.Merri at esa.int
Wed Nov 11 17:25:52 UTC 2015
Dear Peter,
Please find enclosed in "Column G" the MOIMS responses, whose main points
are summarised below:
1. It is not clear the logic of merging together so many dissimilar
projects.
2. We had proposed a priority in the list of topics that you would like to
cover in this WG, it is not clear if you agree with our priority proposal,
which we further elaborate below:
1. CCSDS Reference Architecture
2. CCSDS Registries
3. CCSDS XML standards
4. CCSDS Glossary (no ontology).
5. RASDS refresh.
3. For the above activities you should provide a credible and agreed list
of supporting agencies with resources and plan. For instance, the 3mm
planned from ESA on Project 2 (XML Guidelines) are certainly not in the
ESA plan. Projects 3 and 4 are only supported by NASA: is that at all
possible?
4. We had provided detailed proposed editing of the charter, which are not
yet reflected in CWE. What is your position?
5. As for the provided concept paper, it seems more the merge of
inhomogeneous material, while the most important aspect, i.e. the concept
of how to retrofit the new proposed approaches (e.g. XML guidelines, SANA
Registries, Glossary, Ontology) into the already work of the CCSDS is
missing and needs to be addressed. Also, very importantly, the CCSDS
should be aware up-front of the impact (workload, cost, ...) of these
modifications on the work of other WGs. This is typically the reason why
CCSDS requires a BoF before a WG is created.
Regards,
Brigitte and Mario
From: "Shames, Peter M (312B)" <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
To: "Gian Paolo Calzolari" <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>, "Mario
Merri" <Mario.Merri at esa.int>, "Brigitte Behal" <Brigitte.Behal at cnes.fr>,
"Barkley, Erik J (3970)" <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: "ccsds techsupport" <ccsds_techsupport at aiaa.org>, "CCSDS
Engineering Steering Group - CESG All" <cesg-all at mailman.ccsds.org>
Date: 21/10/2015 01:23
Subject: Re: [Cesg-all] Results of CESG Poll closing 18 September
2015 - System Architecture Working group re-start
Dear All,
Attached please find the SEA SAWG BoF responses to the conditions raised
on the CESG poll that closed 18 Sept. There are two documents attached:
A spreadsheet that turns these conditions into a set of distinct topics
that have each been addressed.
A Concept Paper that provides the requested background information,
rationale, and task descriptions (including supporting models showing the
relationships among these separate projects), and that otherwise covers
all of the topics identified in the CCSDS YB section 6.1.3.3.5 regarding
Concept Papers.
And ?
The SAWG draft projects in the CCSDS Management Framework have been
updated to align with the most current, and reasonable, set of dates.
There are both near term and future projects, as requested by the CMC.
The CESG and CMC were polled, on 21 Sept, asking for qualified candiates
for the WG Chair. There were no responses of any sort.
Please indicate at your earliest convenience if these responses now
satisfy all of the conditions that were raised. There were some CESG
procedural considerations that are really outside the scope of the SEA to
address, so these were deferred to the CESG meeting.
Best regards, Peter
From: <cesg-all-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> on behalf of CCSDS Tech Support
<ccsds_techsupport at aiaa.org>
Date: Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 2:47 PM
To: CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG All <
cesg-all at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: [Cesg-all] Results of CESG Poll closing 18 September 2015
CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2015-09-001 Request to re-start the
System Architecture Working Group (SEA-SA)
Results of CESG poll beginning 04 September 2015 and ending 18 September
2015:
Abstain: 0 (0%)
Approve Unconditionally: 3 (50%) (Barkley, Shames, Scott)
Approve with Conditions: 3 (50%) (Merri, Behal, Calzolari)
Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:
############################
Barkley - Comments: I consider projects 2 and 5 to be of relatively
urgent need. It will also be good to know who the proposed WG chair is.
############################
Merri - The following conditions are raised:
1) The charter seems to mix up together too many topics that have only
marginal relations. I believe that the most critical task is the "CCSDS
Reference Architecture", which is long awaited (see SM&C WG Open Letter to
CCSDS of September 2009), and this is where the WG should focus on, also
in view of the limited resources available. Please look at the attached
edited version of the charter with Brigitte?s and my comments where we
retained the following topics as of highest priority:
- CCSDS Reference Architecture
- CCSDS Glossary Refresh
and eliminated (which may be done later by requesting specific project
approvals):
- CCSDS XML standards (shouldn't this be the output of the SEA-XSG?)
- RASDS refresh (do we need this? Is it urgent? Who has used/will use it?)
- CCSDS Registries & Information Model (shouldn't this be the output of
the SEA-SANA?).
In our view the CCSDS Reference Architecture should serve as the reference
for all our WGs, our user community and IOAG. It should also, to a certain
extent, anticipate and apportion future work in line with the ?London
Agreement?.
2) Looking at the list of draft projects (
http://cwe.ccsds.org/fm/Lists/Projects/AllOpenChartersWithDraftProjects.aspx
) it is not clear how do they match with the tasks of the charter. Also 3
"Reference Architecture" documents look overdone and we think CCSDS should
have only one reference architecture (as a minimum the book titles are
confusing and the charter lacks clarity). Please clarify.
3) As done for the MP&S WG, the nomination of the chair and deputy chair
cannot be done by means of the draft charter. You should consult with the
CCSDS Agencies, identify valuable candidates, and make a proposal to the
CESG. Please remove the name of the proposed chair.
4) Expanding on point 3, we are concerned that your proposed participation
as chair of this WG will take away important resources from the SEA AD
role, thus reducing the effectiveness of your work in one or both areas.
In addition and more importantly, we consider a conflict of interest that
the same person is at the same time AD and WG chair within the same area.
5) YB section 2.3.3.1 states: "No WG will be initiated by CCSDS unless a
credible resource profile has been prepared and at least two agencies have
agreed to provide the necessary support". We could not find any of this.
Are the manpower figures that you provide in the various projects agreed
with the other agencies? Do they match the CCSDS cost model?
6) Please provide the concept paper as required by YB section 6.1.3.3.5.
This should also clarify some of the points above and/or commented
charter.
############################
Calzolari - Charter -
http://cwe.ccsds.org/fm/Lists/Charters/DispForm.aspx?ID=19
With respect to the conditions by MOIMS Area, I want to underline that I
think we all agreed (in San Antonio?) that a concept paper is the needed
document to bridge between real target/schedule and the bare essentiality
of CWE charter/projects. Such a concept paper is therefore very important
to check inter relationship among the proposed projects and they
scheduling.
In particular, it is hard to understand why so heterogeneous projects are
proposed such that the WG would require so many areas of expertise not
necessarily overlapping.
Moreover, it is not possible to understand which projects shall be
approved together with the charter for immediate start and which projects
should actually be included only for later start (i.e. Draft Projects to
be eventually listed at
http://cwe.ccsds.org/fm/Lists/Projects/AllOpenChartersWithDraftProjects.aspx
).
Note that this splitting should be described in the Concept paper.
With respect to the projects, their schedule seems to be quite inaccurate.
It is not clear whether the (Restart) BOF has had any meeting where the
members have approved the proposed charter etc and where Agency
representatives have declared their support to the projects that are going
to start at approval time.
Was it ever agreed that a resurrected WG keeps the same chairperson(s)? I
think that a call for nomination is required when a WG is restarted.
Project 1 - CCSDS Standards Reference Architecture -
http://cwe.ccsds.org/fm/Lists/Projects/DispFormDraft.aspx?ID=557
The resources part looks a statement of intents or a call for partnership
that should have verified before submitting the project for immediate
start.,
Book Editor is proposed to be NASA, but there is a request for resources
to other CCSDS Area.
CCSDS Areas cannot provide resources, only Agencies can. If there is a
need for coordination with other Agencies this shall be expressed
differently. If this is a multi area project this should be assigned to a
multi area WG (as e.g. SDLS WG that is actually a SEA + SLS WG).
Prototypes rows shall be empty as N/A.
Start date is in the past (3 August 2015)
Project 2 - CCSDS XML Guidelines -
http://cwe.ccsds.org/fm/Lists/Projects/DispFormDraft.aspx?ID=559
Document number says YB while Document Type is unknown. I think an initial
guess for document type is mandatory as it drives resources.
This looks a project for immediate start (Dec 2015). Did Agencies
confirmed contribution?
Project 3 - Reference Architecture for Space Data Systems (Issue 2) -
http://cwe.ccsds.org/fm/Lists/Projects/DispFormDraft.aspx?ID=556
This looks a project for immediate start. Did Agencies confirmed
contribution?
Starting August 2015 for publication on February 2016 looks
strange/unrealistic.
Project 4 - Reference Architecture for Space Data Systems (Issue 3) -
http://cwe.ccsds.org/fm/Lists/Projects/DispFormDraft.aspx?ID=558
This project should be entered as DRAFT Project for eventual approval at
due time.
Project 5 - Registry Management Policies -
http://cwe.ccsds.org/fm/Lists/Projects/DispFormDraft.aspx?ID=560
Document number says YB while Document Type is unknown. I think an initial
guess for document type is mandatory as it drives resources.
This looks a project for immediate start. Did Agencies confirmed
contribution?
Starting August 2015 for publication on May 2016 looks
strange/unrealistic.
Total Respondents: 6
No response was received from the following Area(s): SOIS
SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with Conditions
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Once Conditions are met start CMC Poll
[attachment "SEA SAWG CESG Issues 20Oct15.xlsx" deleted by Mario
Merri/esoc/ESA] [attachment "CCSDS System Architecture Working Group
20Oct15.docx" deleted by Mario Merri/esoc/ESA]
[attachment "blank.gif" deleted by Mario Merri/esoc/ESA]
This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee or addressees only.
The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in whole or in part) of its
content is not permitted.
If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system.
Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the sender.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg-all/attachments/20151111/6946cbfa/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 807 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg-all/attachments/20151111/6946cbfa/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SEA SAWG CESG Issues 20Oct15 MM.xlsx
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 20918 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg-all/attachments/20151111/6946cbfa/attachment.obj>
More information about the CESG-All
mailing list