From Nestor.Peccia at esa.int Wed May 2 12:29:31 2012 From: Nestor.Peccia at esa.int (Nestor.Peccia@esa.int) Date: Wed May 2 12:22:37 2012 Subject: [CESG] Re: [Cesg-all] Document Editor Queue In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <22929_1335976166_4FA160E6_22929_10850_1_OFE9344E0B.238325D1-ONC12579F2.005A8C43-C12579F2.005AE6B9@esa.int> Tom Thanks a lot this will be a great help to everybody ciao nestor 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/attachments/20120502/70528ad8/attachment.html From thomas.gannett at tgannett.net Mon May 7 16:40:08 2012 From: thomas.gannett at tgannett.net (CCSDS Secretariat) Date: Mon May 7 16:33:21 2012 Subject: [CESG] CESG Poll Closure Reminder Message-ID: <4fa83327.c1c1e00a.4bc7.7351@mx.google.com> Dear CESG Members, The closure date for the following polls is 9 May 2012: - CESG-P-2012-04-004 Approval to publish CCSDS 660.1-G-1, XML Telemetric and Command Exchange (XTCE)-Element Description (Green Book, Issue 1) - CESG-P-2012-04-005 Approval of Corrigendum 1 to CCSDS 502.0-B-2, Orbit Data Messages (Blue Book, Issue 2, November 2009) These polls can be accessed via the following link: http://public.ccsds.org/sites/cwe/cesg/Polls/default.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20120507/5513e2f2/attachment.html From peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov Tue May 8 15:30:56 2012 From: peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov (Shames, Peter M (313B)) Date: Tue May 8 15:24:15 2012 Subject: [CESG] Re: CESG-P-2012-04-001 Approval to release CCSDS 521.0-P-1.1, Mission Operations Message Abstraction Layer (Pink Sheets, Issue 1.1) for CCSDS Agency review In-Reply-To: <384CFE6B78365146B96A248C6DD390A13F74EF@mx-bri-exch1.scisys.co.uk> Message-ID: Hi Sam, It is clear to me that we keep getting wrapped around the axle of just what is the MAL and how it must be specified to really be a Blue Book in the sense meant in the ?Organization and Processes for the Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems?. CCSDS A02.1-Y-3, Yellow Book. Issue 3. July 2011. Namely: ?Recommended Standards must be complete, unambiguous and at a sufficient level of technical detail that they can be directly implemented and used for space-mission interoperability and cross support. ?Recommended Standards must say very clearly, ?These are the technical properties of what the implementer must build and how it must behave if it is to be compliant and interoperable.? In the case of the MAL, and only in the case of the MAL to my knowledge, we have allowed a very abstract specification to be accepted as a Blue Book. At the CESG insistence the MAL Blue Book also includes the explicit statement, in Sec 2.1: The MO service specifications and the MAL are abstract in their definition; they do not contain any specific information on how to implement them for a particular programming language or transport encoding. Moving from the abstract to the implemented system, two other specifications are needed. One is the Language Mapping that states how the abstract MAL and MO service specifications are to be realised in some specific language: this defines the API in that language. The second is the transport mapping from the abstract MAL data structures into a specific and unambiguous encoding of the messages and to a defined and unambiguous mapping to a specific data transport. It is only when these mappings are defined that is possible to implement services that use the MAL interface and use the transport bindings to exchange data. (For further information on this, see reference [1].) The expected functionality of the Transport Interface is described in Sec 3.7. This section "specifies what facilities must be made available to a compliant MAL and also the required behaviour of the Transport." Please do keep in mind that it is unprecedented in CCSDS, that a Blue Book, in and of itself, is not a complete, unambiguous, and directly implementable specification that has the required properties of interoperability and cross support. It is only when an encoding and transport mapping are also specified that all of these properties are met. The reason for coming back to this is that there is this perceived tendency in the MAL to strive for ever more flexibility in what is permitted. The issue, from the point of view of providing what are truly exact and unambiguous specifications that can be directly implemented, is that every step that is taken toward implementation flexibility seems to lead further away from this requirement on Blue Books. And so your Blue Books, and their mods, get an extra careful reading because of this situation. So here we are, again, trying to find an acceptable path forward. If I try and parse out the underlying specification structures that are being addressed here I think it is these: 1. Data type specification (how the data structures in a MAL message are defined) 2. MAL data types (the primitive data objects used to construct a data type specification) 3. Data type specification language (the technical method used for specifying a data type or a data type specification) 4. Transport encoding (the translation of an abstract data type specification into an unambiguous data structure specification that can be used interoperably) 5. Transport protocol mapping (the unambiguous specification of the MAL abstract message exchanges and behavior onto an implementable transport (or message) protocol that has interoperability properties) If this is so (please confirm), then I think what these sec 2.2.5, 4.1.1 and 4.16 sections are trying to say is that the MAL spec has defined a specific set of (abstract) MAL data types and a specific (abstract) MAL data types specification. But what you wish to permit is for the implementor of a service that uses the MAL specification to not be bound by this specification and instead be permitted to use any other specific data type and structure specification language if they wish to do so. The specific example you mentioned, XML, is one that is now in common use. Unless I misunderstand something, the effect that this relaxation of the rules has is that these parts of the MAL specification may be ignored and implementers have the option of adopting whatever data type specification language that they wish to use in defining their specific services and transport encodings. If I have somehow misunderstood that you are actually proposing please let me know. Maybe I am just not getting the concept. I understand the motivation for wishing to add this flexibility, but I also believe that it further weakens the status of the MAL as a Blue Book. To my eyes it says, in essence "We have defined this abstract spec, but you can ignore it if you wish to do something different." My statement is "be careful what you ask for". Each step away from really defining a Blue Book, with the required properties, makes it less likely that what you publish will be useful in defining interoperable services. That said, see below for my specific comments on the approach you wish to take. Regards, Peter From: Sam Cooper > Date: Tuesday, 8 May 2012 7:06 AM To: Peter Shames > Cc: Nestor Peccia >, MOIMS-SC MOIMS-SC >, Tom Gannett > Subject: CESG-P-2012-04-001 Approval to release CCSDS 521.0-P-1.1, Mission Operations Message Abstraction Layer (Pink Sheets, Issue 1.1) for CCSDS Agency review Hi Peter, please find my response to your comments (BTW, I have merged your comments relating to similar issues together and also included the comments from the annotated document with the referenced text (in italics) for completeness): 1) The most significant is the notion that alternative data type specification languages other than those defined in the MAL might be used (Sec 4.1.1 and elsewhere). How do you achieve interoperability, or even know what encoding has been used, if this sort of free adoption of other data type spec languages is allowed? Shouldn't there be some sort of universal config message, or MIME type spec, or something else used to signal the encoding actually being used? 2.2.5 Operation Template ? The listed types are expected to be MAL data types (or compositions derived from these) as defined in section 4 of this specification, however, any data type specification may be used although interoperability with other entities cannot be guaranteed in this case. 4.1.1 MAL Data Types ? Other data type specification languages (such as XML Schema) may be used to specify the message bodies in service specifications, however support for these other specification languages may not be universal and may limit use of a specification to specific deployments (such as ground only). 4.1.6 Containing Abstract Elements ? Other data type specification languages may allow the containment of abstract elements however the MAL data type specification does not allow this. It is unfortunate that I used the word interoperability in the first example as that is misleading. What this is referring to is that a service specification may use a different data type model for the specification than that of the MAL; this means that the MAL defines one type model but others can be used in a service specification. This is completely separate from the encoding used at runtime. As there is only EVER one specification of the service then all users of that service will be using the same specification, and therefore will all see that it defines the specification message types in (for example) XML Schema. So, there is no interoperability problem as all will see the same specification, there is no runtime encoding problem because that is separate from the specification (as these are encoding independent). The only issue for implementers may come from the fact that they may not know how to represent data type model X (XML Schema for example) in language Y (Java for example) and this is the job of the language APIs. So, the first point in 2.2.5 shall be reworded to remove the last 11 words, specifically ?although interoperability with other entities cannot be guaranteed in this case?. The second point in 4.1.1 is correct but shall be reworded to show that this is referring to the mappings. The third point in 4.1.6 shall be reworded to show that the containment of abstract elements is a limitation on the MAL data type model, i.e. reverse the ordering of the sentence to ?The MAL data type specification does not allow the containment of abstract elements however other data type specification languages may.?. I think if you wish to add in this capability then it would be wise to carefully define these different terms, somewhat like what I did earlier, and state clearly just what is it that you are proposing to allow and what is not permissible. Otherwise this reads to me like "We have defined this abstract spec, but you can ignore it if you wish to do something different." and that seems to me to be a recipe for having your spec ignored or warped to the point where there is no interoperability possible. 2) This is confusing. Does it mean that these values are used in this spec as examples or that these are the only permitted values? 3.1 Abstract service specifications: Overview ? The MAL specification uses the area identifier of ?MAL? and the area number of ?1?. All MAL based specifications (including the MAL) must define the area identifier and number to be used when referencing types and operations from that area in messages. It is a low level detail of the specification. I still find this confusing as it is stated. If this is somehow a recursive or reflexive definition then you need to find a nice way to say that. Maybe some statement of the form "In the context of the MAL spec the Area Identifier "MAL" and the Area Number of "1" are used. In the context in which the MAL spec is to be applied the Area Identifier and the Area Number will be defined for any given implementation or deployment." 3) This is confusing since it directly contradicts the new requirements in Sec 3.4.1.c, .d, and .e. Which is the correct version, the one in 3.4.1 or the one described here and used in examples? 3.4.1 Message Header Field Values ? NOTE -- An alternate representation for Domain is used in other parts of the specification using a single Identifier. Each part of the Domain Identifier list is concatenated using the ?.? character with the most significant first. For example ?Agency.Mission.Craft.Subsystem?. What it is trying to define is an alternative way of representing a domain name in a single identifier. It is not used in the message header (as that is fixed as a list of Identifiers as defined in 3.4.1.c, .d , and .e) but could be used in the data messages (not the header as that is fixed here) of future service specifications if they wanted to. However, if it is confusing I shall remove it. I think this is another of those what have we defined, how are we using it, what freedoms are permitted sort of thing. If what you mean is that in the MAL Message Header the Domain shall be specified as a list of comma separated Identifiers, with the most significant first, then say that. If you wish to define a different data type, like DomainName, that shall be specified as a single compound name with Identifiers concatenated using "." then say that. You can then have a rule that says that Domain shall be used in the Message Header Domain field, but that DomainName may be used elsewhere, such as in Message Body. That would be less ambiguous than how it is now stated. Is this what you meant to define as a et of rules? 4) This, and the related discussions on what is permitted in the message body (Sec 2.2.5), is confusing. Either this is a spec that can be used to produce interoperable implementations, or it is not. If what is supposed to be normative text includes these sorts of "if", "maybe", "this violates" text then it is hardly normative. 3.4.2 Message Body ? e) If the message body uses the MAL types then the last part of the message may be defined as a list of an abstract type, this violates the rules on list specification however at runtime this list shall be replaced with a list of a derived concrete type. The text shall be clarified to: e) The last part of the message body may be defined as a list of an abstract type. f) At runtime any list of an abstract type shall be replaced with a list of a derived concrete type. Is this a "runtime" encoding or is it really an encoding rule / transport mapping function? This whole "if the message body uses the MAL types ..." is exactly the sort of thing that I find troubling. Please define, in unambiguous terms, just what it is that is permitted in this spec if an implementation is to be compliant. If you do not have enough specification capability for your purposes refine the spec until you do have the required capability in the spec. Do not say "we can't do this with the rules we have defined, but you can break the rules and do it another way if you want to." Since you seem to want to build in the ability for a user to define a separate set of data type specifications and message structures in XML perhaps what you need to think about doing is to create an actual, concrete, XML specification as part of the ever expanding SM&C document set. At least then you could deal with these potential ambiguities head on. 5) This proposed change, from using "*" as a wildcard to using "*" for the first sub-key and "0" for subsequent sub-keys strikes me as confusing and potentially error prone. What possible rationale is there for changing the rules in this way? This is hardly normal practice. The fact that you had to add two more requirements just to describe it is indicative of the problem. 3.5.6.5 PubSub: Subscription Matching ? a) A sub-key specified in the EntityKey structure shall take one of three types of value: an actual value, a NULL value, and the special wildcard identifiervalue of ?*? (for the first sub-key only) or zero (for the other three sub-keys). b) Entities shall not use the zero value for the first sub-key as the wildcard value of ?*? is reserved for the first sub-key. c) Entities shall not use the ?*? value for the second, third, and fourth sub-keys as the wildcard value of zero is reserved for these sub-keys. The structure that holds these keys was previously defined as containing four Identifiers, it is now defined as containing a single Identifier followed by three Integers. It is not error prone due to normal programming language type checking. The rational for the change is that in every case that we had used it in we found that the last three sub-keys were always defined to contain a numeric, and it was deemed in-efficient to store these in a string (which is what an Identifier is). Because ?*? is not a valid value for an Integer the value of ?0? was chosen as its replacement. So this is essentially an implementation optimization approach. I suppose that you could as easily have specified that the "*" was the abstract wildcard value but that the implementation binding of this could be done to an integer. That binding, to further remove the ambiguity of a binding of zero, which might be a valid filed entry, could have specified the maximum negative signed integer or some such equally unlikely value. For me it was the "here's a wild card, it's '*'" followed by "here's a wildcard, it's '0'" that stuck me as being really odd and potentially confusing. If you could let me know if you are happy with my responses I shall make the changes in co-ordination with Tom. Best regards, Sam. Please let me know whether I have interpreted your intentions correctly in and how you plan to resolve these remaining issues. Cheers, Peter ___________________________________________________________ Sam Cooper Technical Specialist ? Space Division SciSys UK Limited T: +44 (0)117 916 5127 E: sam.cooper@scisys.co.uk | http://www.scisys.co.uk SciSys UK Limited. Registered in England and Wales No. 4373530. Registered Office: Methuen Park, Chippenham, Wiltshire SN14 0GB, UK. Before printing, please think about the environment. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20120508/da9e1335/attachment-0001.html From Sam.Cooper at scisys.co.uk Wed May 9 04:43:04 2012 From: Sam.Cooper at scisys.co.uk (Sam Cooper) Date: Wed May 9 09:29:38 2012 Subject: [CESG] RE: CESG-P-2012-04-001 Approval to release CCSDS 521.0-P-1.1, Mission Operations Message Abstraction Layer (Pink Sheets, Issue 1.1) for CCSDS Agency review References: Message-ID: <384CFE6B78365146B96A248C6DD390A13F751D@mx-bri-exch1.scisys.co.uk> Hi Peter, I'm not going to get into the old discussion of what is a magenta book and what is a blue book, we have been there and we have done that. So, to focus on your question below: If I try and parse out the underlying specification structures that are being addressed here I think it is these: 1. Data type specification (how the data structures in a MAL message are defined) 2. MAL data types (the primitive data objects used to construct a data type specification) 3. Data type specification language (the technical method used for specifying a data type or a data type specification) 4. Transport encoding (the translation of an abstract data type specification into an unambiguous data structure specification that can be used interoperably) 5. Transport protocol mapping (the unambiguous specification of the MAL abstract message exchanges and behavior onto an implementable transport (or message) protocol that has interoperability properties) If this is so (please confirm), then I think what these sec 2.2.5, 4.1.1 and 4.16 sections are trying to say is that the MAL spec has defined a specific set of (abstract) MAL data types and a specific (abstract) MAL data types specification. But what you wish to permit is for the implementor of a service that uses the MAL specification to not be bound by this specification and instead be permitted to use any other specific data type and structure specification language if they wish to do so. The specific example you mentioned, XML, is one that is now in common use. Unless I misunderstand something, the effect that this relaxation of the rules has is that these parts of the MAL specification may be ignored and implementers have the option of adopting whatever data type specification language that they wish to use in defining their specific services and transport encodings. Yes, you are correct in the above, in the MAL we provide a data type and structure specification language that can be used to define the body of the messages of a specific service. Previously that was the only option available to use. All we have changed now is to say, for a specific service you can use an alternative data type and structure specification language (XML Schema is the most obvious one) if you wish. However, I strongly believe that it does not reduce interoperability; exactly in the same way that having a bespoke transport encoding doesn't, the service is still interoperable as long as you share the relevant information. Further comments are inserted below, let me know what you think. Regards, Sam. ________________________________ From: Shames, Peter M (313B) [mailto:peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov] Sent: 08 May 2012 20:31 To: Sam Cooper Cc: Nestor.Peccia@esa.int; moims-sc@mailman.ccsds.org; Thomas Gannett; CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec Subject: Re: CESG-P-2012-04-001 Approval to release CCSDS 521.0-P-1.1, Mission Operations Message Abstraction Layer (Pink Sheets, Issue 1.1) for CCSDS Agency review Hi Sam, It is clear to me that we keep getting wrapped around the axle of just what is the MAL and how it must be specified to really be a Blue Book in the sense meant in the "Organization and Processes for the Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems". CCSDS A02.1-Y-3, Yellow Book. Issue 3. July 2011. Namely: * Recommended Standards must be complete, unambiguous and at a sufficient level of technical detail that they can be directly implemented and used for space-mission interoperability and cross support. * Recommended Standards must say very clearly, "These are the technical properties of what the implementer must build and how it must behave if it is to be compliant and interoperable." In the case of the MAL, and only in the case of the MAL to my knowledge, we have allowed a very abstract specification to be accepted as a Blue Book. At the CESG insistence the MAL Blue Book also includes the explicit statement, in Sec 2.1: The MO service specifications and the MAL are abstract in their definition; they do not contain any specific information on how to implement them for a particular programming language or transport encoding. Moving from the abstract to the implemented system, two other specifications are needed. One is the Language Mapping that states how the abstract MAL and MO service specifications are to be realised in some specific language: this defines the API in that language. The second is the transport mapping from the abstract MAL data structures into a specific and unambiguous encoding of the messages and to a defined and unambiguous mapping to a specific data transport. It is only when these mappings are defined that is possible to implement services that use the MAL interface and use the transport bindings to exchange data. (For further information on this, see reference [1].) The expected functionality of the Transport Interface is described in Sec 3.7. This section "specifies what facilities must be made available to a compliant MAL and also the required behaviour of the Transport." Please do keep in mind that it is unprecedented in CCSDS, that a Blue Book, in and of itself, is not a complete, unambiguous, and directly implementable specification that has the required properties of interoperability and cross support. It is only when an encoding and transport mapping are also specified that all of these properties are met. The reason for coming back to this is that there is this perceived tendency in the MAL to strive for ever more flexibility in what is permitted. The issue, from the point of view of providing what are truly exact and unambiguous specifications that can be directly implemented, is that every step that is taken toward implementation flexibility seems to lead further away from this requirement on Blue Books. And so your Blue Books, and their mods, get an extra careful reading because of this situation. So here we are, again, trying to find an acceptable path forward. If I try and parse out the underlying specification structures that are being addressed here I think it is these: 6. Data type specification (how the data structures in a MAL message are defined) 7. MAL data types (the primitive data objects used to construct a data type specification) 8. Data type specification language (the technical method used for specifying a data type or a data type specification) 9. Transport encoding (the translation of an abstract data type specification into an unambiguous data structure specification that can be used interoperably) 10. Transport protocol mapping (the unambiguous specification of the MAL abstract message exchanges and behavior onto an implementable transport (or message) protocol that has interoperability properties) If this is so (please confirm), then I think what these sec 2.2.5, 4.1.1 and 4.16 sections are trying to say is that the MAL spec has defined a specific set of (abstract) MAL data types and a specific (abstract) MAL data types specification. But what you wish to permit is for the implementor of a service that uses the MAL specification to not be bound by this specification and instead be permitted to use any other specific data type and structure specification language if they wish to do so. The specific example you mentioned, XML, is one that is now in common use. Unless I misunderstand something, the effect that this relaxation of the rules has is that these parts of the MAL specification may be ignored and implementers have the option of adopting whatever data type specification language that they wish to use in defining their specific services and transport encodings. If I have somehow misunderstood that you are actually proposing please let me know. Maybe I am just not getting the concept. I understand the motivation for wishing to add this flexibility, but I also believe that it further weakens the status of the MAL as a Blue Book. To my eyes it says, in essence "We have defined this abstract spec, but you can ignore it if you wish to do something different." My statement is "be careful what you ask for". Each step away from really defining a Blue Book, with the required properties, makes it less likely that what you publish will be useful in defining interoperable services. That said, see below for my specific comments on the approach you wish to take. Regards, Peter From: Sam Cooper Date: Tuesday, 8 May 2012 7:06 AM To: Peter Shames Cc: Nestor Peccia , MOIMS-SC MOIMS-SC , Tom Gannett Subject: CESG-P-2012-04-001 Approval to release CCSDS 521.0-P-1.1, Mission Operations Message Abstraction Layer (Pink Sheets, Issue 1.1) for CCSDS Agency review Hi Peter, please find my response to your comments (BTW, I have merged your comments relating to similar issues together and also included the comments from the annotated document with the referenced text (in italics) for completeness): 1) The most significant is the notion that alternative data type specification languages other than those defined in the MAL might be used (Sec 4.1.1 and elsewhere). How do you achieve interoperability, or even know what encoding has been used, if this sort of free adoption of other data type spec languages is allowed? Shouldn't there be some sort of universal config message, or MIME type spec, or something else used to signal the encoding actually being used? 2.2.5 Operation Template ... The listed types are expected to be MAL data types (or compositions derived from these) as defined in section 4 of this specification, however, any data type specification may be used although interoperability with other entities cannot be guaranteed in this case. 4.1.1 MAL Data Types ... Other data type specification languages (such as XML Schema) may be used to specify the message bodies in service specifications, however support for these other specification languages may not be universal and may limit use of a specification to specific deployments (such as ground only). 4.1.6 Containing Abstract Elements ... Other data type specification languages may allow the containment of abstract elements however the MAL data type specification does not allow this. It is unfortunate that I used the word interoperability in the first example as that is misleading. What this is referring to is that a service specification may use a different data type model for the specification than that of the MAL; this means that the MAL defines one type model but others can be used in a service specification. This is completely separate from the encoding used at runtime. As there is only EVER one specification of the service then all users of that service will be using the same specification, and therefore will all see that it defines the specification message types in (for example) XML Schema. So, there is no interoperability problem as all will see the same specification, there is no runtime encoding problem because that is separate from the specification (as these are encoding independent). The only issue for implementers may come from the fact that they may not know how to represent data type model X (XML Schema for example) in language Y (Java for example) and this is the job of the language APIs. So, the first point in 2.2.5 shall be reworded to remove the last 11 words, specifically 'although interoperability with other entities cannot be guaranteed in this case'. The second point in 4.1.1 is correct but shall be reworded to show that this is referring to the mappings. The third point in 4.1.6 shall be reworded to show that the containment of abstract elements is a limitation on the MAL data type model, i.e. reverse the ordering of the sentence to 'The MAL data type specification does not allow the containment of abstract elements however other data type specification languages may.'. I think if you wish to add in this capability then it would be wise to carefully define these different terms, somewhat like what I did earlier, and state clearly just what is it that you are proposing to allow and what is not permissible. Otherwise this reads to me like "We have defined this abstract spec, but you can ignore it if you wish to do something different." and that seems to me to be a recipe for having your spec ignored or warped to the point where there is no interoperability possible. >>> Good suggestion, I will update the text to clarify this in section 2 and make sure the correct terms are used in the other sections. 2) This is confusing. Does it mean that these values are used in this spec as examples or that these are the only permitted values? 3.1 Abstract service specifications: Overview ... The MAL specification uses the area identifier of 'MAL' and the area number of '1'. All MAL based specifications (including the MAL) must define the area identifier and number to be used when referencing types and operations from that area in messages. It is a low level detail of the specification. I still find this confusing as it is stated. If this is somehow a recursive or reflexive definition then you need to find a nice way to say that. Maybe some statement of the form "In the context of the MAL spec the Area Identifier "MAL" and the Area Number of "1" are used. In the context in which the MAL spec is to be applied the Area Identifier and the Area Number will be defined for any given implementation or deployment." >> Good suggestion, however the area number/identifier are service specific so how about "In the context of the MAL spec the Area Identifier "MAL" and the Area Number of "1" are used. In the context in which the MAL spec is to be applied the Area Identifier and the Area Number will be defined for any given specification."? 3) This is confusing since it directly contradicts the new requirements in Sec 3.4.1.c, .d, and .e. Which is the correct version, the one in 3.4.1 or the one described here and used in examples? 3.4.1 Message Header Field Values ... NOTE -- An alternate representation for Domain is used in other parts of the specification using a single Identifier. Each part of the Domain Identifier list is concatenated using the '.' character with the most significant first. For example 'Agency.Mission.Craft.Subsystem'. What it is trying to define is an alternative way of representing a domain name in a single identifier. It is not used in the message header (as that is fixed as a list of Identifiers as defined in 3.4.1.c, .d , and .e) but could be used in the data messages (not the header as that is fixed here) of future service specifications if they wanted to. However, if it is confusing I shall remove it. I think this is another of those what have we defined, how are we using it, what freedoms are permitted sort of thing. If what you mean is that in the MAL Message Header the Domain shall be specified as a list of comma separated Identifiers, with the most significant first, then say that. If you wish to define a different data type, like DomainName, that shall be specified as a single compound name with Identifiers concatenated using "." then say that. You can then have a rule that says that Domain shall be used in the Message Header Domain field, but that DomainName may be used elsewhere, such as in Message Body. That would be less ambiguous than how it is now stated. Is this what you meant to define as a et of rules? >> I shall remove the note, it is only adding confusion and is not directly needed in the MAL specification. If an alternative representation is required elsewhere then it shall be defined there. 4) This, and the related discussions on what is permitted in the message body (Sec 2.2.5), is confusing. Either this is a spec that can be used to produce interoperable implementations, or it is not. If what is supposed to be normative text includes these sorts of "if", "maybe", "this violates" text then it is hardly normative. 3.4.2 Message Body ... e) If the message body uses the MAL types then the last part of the message may be defined as a list of an abstract type, this violates the rules on list specification however at runtime this list shall be replaced with a list of a derived concrete type. The text shall be clarified to: e) The last part of the message body may be defined as a list of an abstract type. f) At runtime any list of an abstract type shall be replaced with a list of a derived concrete type. Is this a "runtime" encoding or is it really an encoding rule / transport mapping function? This whole "if the message body uses the MAL types ..." is exactly the sort of thing that I find troubling. Please define, in unambiguous terms, just what it is that is permitted in this spec if an implementation is to be compliant. If you do not have enough specification capability for your purposes refine the spec until you do have the required capability in the spec. Do not say "we can't do this with the rules we have defined, but you can break the rules and do it another way if you want to." >>> The above change in green removes the "if the message body uses the MAL types ..." part and also removes the "we can't do this with the rules we have defined, but you can break the rules and do it another way if you want to." part. I shall rephrase the second part (f) to clarify that runtime means at message encoding time. Since you seem to want to build in the ability for a user to define a separate set of data type specifications and message structures in XML perhaps what you need to think about doing is to create an actual, concrete, XML specification as part of the ever expanding SM&C document set. At least then you could deal with these potential ambiguities head on. >>> Since we know that it is likely that XML Schema is to be used (for example Nav messages) then it would make sense that any encoding book will have to at least mention how it deals with specifications that use XML Schema (even if to say that it isn't supported). I would say that any other data type specification language would fall into the bespoke category; obviously this may change over time when we are all using quantum computers and the next great thing is upon us! :-) 5) This proposed change, from using "*" as a wildcard to using "*" for the first sub-key and "0" for subsequent sub-keys strikes me as confusing and potentially error prone. What possible rationale is there for changing the rules in this way? This is hardly normal practice. The fact that you had to add two more requirements just to describe it is indicative of the problem. 3.5.6.5 PubSub: Subscription Matching ... a) A sub-key specified in the EntityKey structure shall take one of three types of value: an actual value, a NULL value, and the special wildcard identifiervalue of '*' (for the first sub-key only) or zero (for the other three sub-keys). b) Entities shall not use the zero value for the first sub-key as the wildcard value of '*' is reserved for the first sub-key. c) Entities shall not use the '*' value for the second, third, and fourth sub-keys as the wildcard value of zero is reserved for these sub-keys. The structure that holds these keys was previously defined as containing four Identifiers, it is now defined as containing a single Identifier followed by three Integers. It is not error prone due to normal programming language type checking. The rational for the change is that in every case that we had used it in we found that the last three sub-keys were always defined to contain a numeric, and it was deemed in-efficient to store these in a string (which is what an Identifier is). Because '*' is not a valid value for an Integer the value of '0' was chosen as its replacement. So this is essentially an implementation optimization approach. I suppose that you could as easily have specified that the "*" was the abstract wildcard value but that the implementation binding of this could be done to an integer. That binding, to further remove the ambiguity of a binding of zero, which might be a valid filed entry, could have specified the maximum negative signed integer or some such equally unlikely value. For me it was the "here's a wild card, it's '*'" followed by "here's a wildcard, it's '0'" that stuck me as being really odd and potentially confusing. >>> Well it is not implementation only because the types of the fields are fixed in the MAL for this, so it will always be Integer. If you could let me know if you are happy with my responses I shall make the changes in co-ordination with Tom. Best regards, Sam. Please let me know whether I have interpreted your intentions correctly in and how you plan to resolve these remaining issues. Cheers, Peter ___________________________________________________________ Sam Cooper Technical Specialist - Space Division SciSys UK Limited T: +44 (0)117 916 5127 E: sam.cooper@scisys.co.uk | http://www.scisys.co.uk SciSys UK Limited. Registered in England and Wales No. 4373530. Registered Office: Methuen Park, Chippenham, Wiltshire SN14 0GB, UK. Before printing, please think about the environment. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20120509/a19b3ba7/attachment-0001.html From peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov Wed May 9 11:50:32 2012 From: peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov (Shames, Peter M (313B)) Date: Wed May 9 11:44:37 2012 Subject: [CESG] Re: CESG-P-2012-04-001 Approval to release CCSDS 521.0-P-1.1, Mission Operations Message Abstraction Layer (Pink Sheets, Issue 1.1) for CCSDS Agency review In-Reply-To: <384CFE6B78365146B96A248C6DD390A13F751D@mx-bri-exch1.scisys.co.uk> Message-ID: Hi Sam, I think that you got the point that I was trying to make and the changes that you have proposed seem satisfactory. Forge on. Regards, Peter From: Sam Cooper > Date: Wednesday, 9 May 2012 1:43 AM To: Peter Shames > Cc: Nestor Peccia >, MOIMS-SC MOIMS-SC >, Tom Gannett >, CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec > Subject: RE: CESG-P-2012-04-001 Approval to release CCSDS 521.0-P-1.1, Mission Operations Message Abstraction Layer (Pink Sheets, Issue 1.1) for CCSDS Agency review Hi Peter, I?m not going to get into the old discussion of what is a magenta book and what is a blue book, we have been there and we have done that. So, to focus on your question below: If I try and parse out the underlying specification structures that are being addressed here I think it is these: 1. Data type specification (how the data structures in a MAL message are defined) 2. MAL data types (the primitive data objects used to construct a data type specification) 3. Data type specification language (the technical method used for specifying a data type or a data type specification) 4. Transport encoding (the translation of an abstract data type specification into an unambiguous data structure specification that can be used interoperably) 5. Transport protocol mapping (the unambiguous specification of the MAL abstract message exchanges and behavior onto an implementable transport (or message) protocol that has interoperability properties) If this is so (please confirm), then I think what these sec 2.2.5, 4.1.1 and 4.16 sections are trying to say is that the MAL spec has defined a specific set of (abstract) MAL data types and a specific (abstract) MAL data types specification. But what you wish to permit is for the implementor of a service that uses the MAL specification to not be bound by this specification and instead be permitted to use any other specific data type and structure specification language if they wish to do so. The specific example you mentioned, XML, is one that is now in common use. Unless I misunderstand something, the effect that this relaxation of the rules has is that these parts of the MAL specification may be ignored and implementers have the option of adopting whatever data type specification language that they wish to use in defining their specific services and transport encodings. Yes, you are correct in the above, in the MAL we provide a data type and structure specification language that can be used to define the body of the messages of a specific service. Previously that was the only option available to use. All we have changed now is to say, for a specific service you can use an alternative data type and structure specification language (XML Schema is the most obvious one) if you wish. However, I strongly believe that it does not reduce interoperability; exactly in the same way that having a bespoke transport encoding doesn?t, the service is still interoperable as long as you share the relevant information. Further comments are inserted below, let me know what you think. Regards, Sam. ________________________________ From: Shames, Peter M (313B) [mailto:peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov] Sent: 08 May 2012 20:31 To: Sam Cooper Cc: Nestor.Peccia@esa.int; moims-sc@mailman.ccsds.org; Thomas Gannett; CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec Subject: Re: CESG-P-2012-04-001 Approval to release CCSDS 521.0-P-1.1, Mission Operations Message Abstraction Layer (Pink Sheets, Issue 1.1) for CCSDS Agency review Hi Sam, It is clear to me that we keep getting wrapped around the axle of just what is the MAL and how it must be specified to really be a Blue Book in the sense meant in the ?Organization and Processes for the Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems?. CCSDS A02.1-Y-3, Yellow Book. Issue 3. July 2011. Namely: ? Recommended Standards must be complete, unambiguous and at a sufficient level of technical detail that they can be directly implemented and used for space-mission interoperability and cross support. ? Recommended Standards must say very clearly, ?These are the technical properties of what the implementer must build and how it must behave if it is to be compliant and interoperable.? In the case of the MAL, and only in the case of the MAL to my knowledge, we have allowed a very abstract specification to be accepted as a Blue Book. At the CESG insistence the MAL Blue Book also includes the explicit statement, in Sec 2.1: The MO service specifications and the MAL are abstract in their definition; they do not contain any specific information on how to implement them for a particular programming language or transport encoding. Moving from the abstract to the implemented system, two other specifications are needed. One is the Language Mapping that states how the abstract MAL and MO service specifications are to be realised in some specific language: this defines the API in that language. The second is the transport mapping from the abstract MAL data structures into a specific and unambiguous encoding of the messages and to a defined and unambiguous mapping to a specific data transport. It is only when these mappings are defined that is possible to implement services that use the MAL interface and use the transport bindings to exchange data. (For further information on this, see reference [1].) The expected functionality of the Transport Interface is described in Sec 3.7. This section "specifies what facilities must be made available to a compliant MAL and also the required behaviour of the Transport." Please do keep in mind that it is unprecedented in CCSDS, that a Blue Book, in and of itself, is not a complete, unambiguous, and directly implementable specification that has the required properties of interoperability and cross support. It is only when an encoding and transport mapping are also specified that all of these properties are met. The reason for coming back to this is that there is this perceived tendency in the MAL to strive for ever more flexibility in what is permitted. The issue, from the point of view of providing what are truly exact and unambiguous specifications that can be directly implemented, is that every step that is taken toward implementation flexibility seems to lead further away from this requirement on Blue Books. And so your Blue Books, and their mods, get an extra careful reading because of this situation. So here we are, again, trying to find an acceptable path forward. If I try and parse out the underlying specification structures that are being addressed here I think it is these: 1. Data type specification (how the data structures in a MAL message are defined) 2. MAL data types (the primitive data objects used to construct a data type specification) 3. Data type specification language (the technical method used for specifying a data type or a data type specification) 4. Transport encoding (the translation of an abstract data type specification into an unambiguous data structure specification that can be used interoperably) 5. Transport protocol mapping (the unambiguous specification of the MAL abstract message exchanges and behavior onto an implementable transport (or message) protocol that has interoperability properties) If this is so (please confirm), then I think what these sec 2.2.5, 4.1.1 and 4.16 sections are trying to say is that the MAL spec has defined a specific set of (abstract) MAL data types and a specific (abstract) MAL data types specification. But what you wish to permit is for the implementor of a service that uses the MAL specification to not be bound by this specification and instead be permitted to use any other specific data type and structure specification language if they wish to do so. The specific example you mentioned, XML, is one that is now in common use. Unless I misunderstand something, the effect that this relaxation of the rules has is that these parts of the MAL specification may be ignored and implementers have the option of adopting whatever data type specification language that they wish to use in defining their specific services and transport encodings. If I have somehow misunderstood that you are actually proposing please let me know. Maybe I am just not getting the concept. I understand the motivation for wishing to add this flexibility, but I also believe that it further weakens the status of the MAL as a Blue Book. To my eyes it says, in essence "We have defined this abstract spec, but you can ignore it if you wish to do something different." My statement is "be careful what you ask for". Each step away from really defining a Blue Book, with the required properties, makes it less likely that what you publish will be useful in defining interoperable services. That said, see below for my specific comments on the approach you wish to take. Regards, Peter From: Sam Cooper > Date: Tuesday, 8 May 2012 7:06 AM To: Peter Shames > Cc: Nestor Peccia >, MOIMS-SC MOIMS-SC >, Tom Gannett > Subject: CESG-P-2012-04-001 Approval to release CCSDS 521.0-P-1.1, Mission Operations Message Abstraction Layer (Pink Sheets, Issue 1.1) for CCSDS Agency review Hi Peter, please find my response to your comments (BTW, I have merged your comments relating to similar issues together and also included the comments from the annotated document with the referenced text (in italics) for completeness): 1) The most significant is the notion that alternative data type specification languages other than those defined in the MAL might be used (Sec 4.1.1 and elsewhere). How do you achieve interoperability, or even know what encoding has been used, if this sort of free adoption of other data type spec languages is allowed? Shouldn't there be some sort of universal config message, or MIME type spec, or something else used to signal the encoding actually being used? 2.2.5 Operation Template ? The listed types are expected to be MAL data types (or compositions derived from these) as defined in section 4 of this specification, however, any data type specification may be used although interoperability with other entities cannot be guaranteed in this case. 4.1.1 MAL Data Types ? Other data type specification languages (such as XML Schema) may be used to specify the message bodies in service specifications, however support for these other specification languages may not be universal and may limit use of a specification to specific deployments (such as ground only). 4.1.6 Containing Abstract Elements ? Other data type specification languages may allow the containment of abstract elements however the MAL data type specification does not allow this. It is unfortunate that I used the word interoperability in the first example as that is misleading. What this is referring to is that a service specification may use a different data type model for the specification than that of the MAL; this means that the MAL defines one type model but others can be used in a service specification. This is completely separate from the encoding used at runtime. As there is only EVER one specification of the service then all users of that service will be using the same specification, and therefore will all see that it defines the specification message types in (for example) XML Schema. So, there is no interoperability problem as all will see the same specification, there is no runtime encoding problem because that is separate from the specification (as these are encoding independent). The only issue for implementers may come from the fact that they may not know how to represent data type model X (XML Schema for example) in language Y (Java for example) and this is the job of the language APIs. So, the first point in 2.2.5 shall be reworded to remove the last 11 words, specifically ?although interoperability with other entities cannot be guaranteed in this case?. The second point in 4.1.1 is correct but shall be reworded to show that this is referring to the mappings. The third point in 4.1.6 shall be reworded to show that the containment of abstract elements is a limitation on the MAL data type model, i.e. reverse the ordering of the sentence to ?The MAL data type specification does not allow the containment of abstract elements however other data type specification languages may.?. I think if you wish to add in this capability then it would be wise to carefully define these different terms, somewhat like what I did earlier, and state clearly just what is it that you are proposing to allow and what is not permissible. Otherwise this reads to me like "We have defined this abstract spec, but you can ignore it if you wish to do something different." and that seems to me to be a recipe for having your spec ignored or warped to the point where there is no interoperability possible. >>> Good suggestion, I will update the text to clarify this in section 2 and make sure the correct terms are used in the other sections. 2) This is confusing. Does it mean that these values are used in this spec as examples or that these are the only permitted values? 3.1 Abstract service specifications: Overview ? The MAL specification uses the area identifier of ?MAL? and the area number of ?1?. All MAL based specifications (including the MAL) must define the area identifier and number to be used when referencing types and operations from that area in messages. It is a low level detail of the specification. I still find this confusing as it is stated. If this is somehow a recursive or reflexive definition then you need to find a nice way to say that. Maybe some statement of the form "In the context of the MAL spec the Area Identifier "MAL" and the Area Number of "1" are used. In the context in which the MAL spec is to be applied the Area Identifier and the Area Number will be defined for any given implementation or deployment." >> Good suggestion, however the area number/identifier are service specific so how about ?In the context of the MAL spec the Area Identifier "MAL" and the Area Number of "1" are used. In the context in which the MAL spec is to be applied the Area Identifier and the Area Number will be defined for any given specification.?? 3) This is confusing since it directly contradicts the new requirements in Sec 3.4.1.c, .d, and .e. Which is the correct version, the one in 3.4.1 or the one described here and used in examples? 3.4.1 Message Header Field Values ? NOTE -- An alternate representation for Domain is used in other parts of the specification using a single Identifier. Each part of the Domain Identifier list is concatenated using the ?.? character with the most significant first. For example ?Agency.Mission.Craft.Subsystem?. What it is trying to define is an alternative way of representing a domain name in a single identifier. It is not used in the message header (as that is fixed as a list of Identifiers as defined in 3.4.1.c, .d , and .e) but could be used in the data messages (not the header as that is fixed here) of future service specifications if they wanted to. However, if it is confusing I shall remove it. I think this is another of those what have we defined, how are we using it, what freedoms are permitted sort of thing. If what you mean is that in the MAL Message Header the Domain shall be specified as a list of comma separated Identifiers, with the most significant first, then say that. If you wish to define a different data type, like DomainName, that shall be specified as a single compound name with Identifiers concatenated using "." then say that. You can then have a rule that says that Domain shall be used in the Message Header Domain field, but that DomainName may be used elsewhere, such as in Message Body. That would be less ambiguous than how it is now stated. Is this what you meant to define as a et of rules? >> I shall remove the note, it is only adding confusion and is not directly needed in the MAL specification. If an alternative representation is required elsewhere then it shall be defined there. 4) This, and the related discussions on what is permitted in the message body (Sec 2.2.5), is confusing. Either this is a spec that can be used to produce interoperable implementations, or it is not. If what is supposed to be normative text includes these sorts of "if", "maybe", "this violates" text then it is hardly normative. 3.4.2 Message Body ? e) If the message body uses the MAL types then the last part of the message may be defined as a list of an abstract type, this violates the rules on list specification however at runtime this list shall be replaced with a list of a derived concrete type. The text shall be clarified to: e) The last part of the message body may be defined as a list of an abstract type. f) At runtime any list of an abstract type shall be replaced with a list of a derived concrete type. Is this a "runtime" encoding or is it really an encoding rule / transport mapping function? This whole "if the message body uses the MAL types ..." is exactly the sort of thing that I find troubling. Please define, in unambiguous terms, just what it is that is permitted in this spec if an implementation is to be compliant. If you do not have enough specification capability for your purposes refine the spec until you do have the required capability in the spec. Do not say "we can't do this with the rules we have defined, but you can break the rules and do it another way if you want to." >>> The above change in green removes the ?if the message body uses the MAL types ...? part and also removes the ?we can't do this with the rules we have defined, but you can break the rules and do it another way if you want to.? part. I shall rephrase the second part (f) to clarify that runtime means at message encoding time. Since you seem to want to build in the ability for a user to define a separate set of data type specifications and message structures in XML perhaps what you need to think about doing is to create an actual, concrete, XML specification as part of the ever expanding SM&C document set. At least then you could deal with these potential ambiguities head on. >>> Since we know that it is likely that XML Schema is to be used (for example Nav messages) then it would make sense that any encoding book will have to at least mention how it deals with specifications that use XML Schema (even if to say that it isn?t supported). I would say that any other data type specification language would fall into the bespoke category; obviously this may change over time when we are all using quantum computers and the next great thing is upon us! :) 5) This proposed change, from using "*" as a wildcard to using "*" for the first sub-key and "0" for subsequent sub-keys strikes me as confusing and potentially error prone. What possible rationale is there for changing the rules in this way? This is hardly normal practice. The fact that you had to add two more requirements just to describe it is indicative of the problem. 3.5.6.5 PubSub: Subscription Matching ? a) A sub-key specified in the EntityKey structure shall take one of three types of value: an actual value, a NULL value, and the special wildcard identifiervalue of ?*? (for the first sub-key only) or zero (for the other three sub-keys). b) Entities shall not use the zero value for the first sub-key as the wildcard value of ?*? is reserved for the first sub-key. c) Entities shall not use the ?*? value for the second, third, and fourth sub-keys as the wildcard value of zero is reserved for these sub-keys. The structure that holds these keys was previously defined as containing four Identifiers, it is now defined as containing a single Identifier followed by three Integers. It is not error prone due to normal programming language type checking. The rational for the change is that in every case that we had used it in we found that the last three sub-keys were always defined to contain a numeric, and it was deemed in-efficient to store these in a string (which is what an Identifier is). Because ?*? is not a valid value for an Integer the value of ?0? was chosen as its replacement. So this is essentially an implementation optimization approach. I suppose that you could as easily have specified that the "*" was the abstract wildcard value but that the implementation binding of this could be done to an integer. That binding, to further remove the ambiguity of a binding of zero, which might be a valid filed entry, could have specified the maximum negative signed integer or some such equally unlikely value. For me it was the "here's a wild card, it's '*'" followed by "here's a wildcard, it's '0'" that stuck me as being really odd and potentially confusing. >>> Well it is not implementation only because the types of the fields are fixed in the MAL for this, so it will always be Integer. If you could let me know if you are happy with my responses I shall make the changes in co-ordination with Tom. Best regards, Sam. Please let me know whether I have interpreted your intentions correctly in and how you plan to resolve these remaining issues. Cheers, Peter ___________________________________________________________ Sam Cooper Technical Specialist ? Space Division SciSys UK Limited T: +44 (0)117 916 5127 E: sam.cooper@scisys.co.uk | http://www.scisys.co.uk SciSys UK Limited. Registered in England and Wales No. 4373530. Registered Office: Methuen Park, Chippenham, Wiltshire SN14 0GB, UK. Before printing, please think about the environment. SciSys UK Limited. Registered in England and Wales No. 4373530. Registered Office: Methuen Park, Chippenham, Wiltshire SN14 0GB, UK. Before printing, please think about the environment. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20120509/7791f73c/attachment.htm From tomg at aiaa.org Wed May 9 12:51:59 2012 From: tomg at aiaa.org (CCSDS Secretariat) Date: Wed May 9 12:45:12 2012 Subject: [CESG] New CESG Poll Message-ID: <449ccf92-a57a-4f19-815b-8054971f93a0@AIAASWMLEXCH002.hq.ad.aiaa.org> Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- BEGIN:VCALENDAR PRODID:-//Microsoft Corporation//Outlook 14.0 MIMEDIR//EN VERSION:2.0 METHOD:PUBLISH X-MS-OLK-FORCEINSPECTOROPEN:TRUE BEGIN:VEVENT CATEGORIES:Orange Category CLASS:PUBLIC CREATED:20120509T165023Z DESCRIPTION:CESG-P-2012-05-001 Approval to release CCSDS 722.1-R-1\, Opera tion of CFDP over Encapsulation Service (Red Book\, Issue 1) for CCSDS Age ncy review\n DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20120524 DTSTAMP:20120509T165023Z DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20120523 LAST-MODIFIED:20120509T165023Z PRIORITY:5 SEQUENCE:0 SUMMARY;LANGUAGE=en-us:CESG Poll Closure TRANSP:TRANSPARENT UID:040000008200E00074C5B7101A82E0080000000040928B40E22DCD01000000000000000 010000000E9F869BFFA293A46B8D8DF695D450F61 X-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html:\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

CESG-P-2012-05-001 Approval to release CCSDS 722.1-R-1\, \; Operat ion of CFDP over Encapsulation Service (Red Book\, Issue 1) for CCSDS Agen cy review

\n\n\n X-MICROSOFT-CDO-BUSYSTATUS:FREE X-MICROSOFT-CDO-IMPORTANCE:1 X-MICROSOFT-DISALLOW-COUNTER:FALSE X-MS-OLK-CONFTYPE:0 BEGIN:VALARM TRIGGER:-PT1080M ACTION:DISPLAY DESCRIPTION:Reminder END:VALARM END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR From Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int Fri May 11 05:44:11 2012 From: Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int (Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int) Date: Fri May 11 05:37:38 2012 Subject: [CESG] SLS Area Resolution SLS-R-2012-05-001 (130.2+230.1) Two Green Books for Space Data Link Protocols & TC Synchronization and Channel Coding Message-ID: <29476_1336729450_4FACDF6A_29476_1694_1_OFFF5F8DF4.20E92CC7-ONC12579FB.00348B50-C12579FB.00357BCE@esa.int> Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SLS-R-2012-05-001(130.2+230.1).v1.0.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 305884 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20120511/28029fcc/SLS-R-2012-05-001130.2230.1.v1.0-0001.obj From adrian.j.hooke at jpl.nasa.gov Fri May 18 19:08:39 2012 From: adrian.j.hooke at jpl.nasa.gov (Hooke, Adrian J (9000)) Date: Fri May 18 19:02:32 2012 Subject: [CESG] Draft summary of Spring 2012 CESG and technical meetings Message-ID: Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CESG-Spring2012-Summary-18May12.pptx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.presentationml.presentation Size: 344522 bytes Desc: CESG-Spring2012-Summary-18May12.pptx Url : http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20120518/8a24f40e/CESG-Spring2012-Summary-18May12-0001.bin From tomg at aiaa.org Tue May 22 07:33:50 2012 From: tomg at aiaa.org (CCSDS Secretariat) Date: Tue May 22 07:27:33 2012 Subject: [CESG] CESG Poll Closure Reminder Message-ID: Dear CESG Members, The closure date for the following poll is 23 May 2012: - CESG-P-2012-05-001 Approval to release CCSDS 722.1-R-1, Operation of CFDP over Encapsulation Service (Red Book, Issue 1) for CCSDS Agency review This poll can be accessed via the following link: http://public.ccsds.org/sites/cwe/cesg/Polls/default.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20120522/390ed808/attachment.htm From Nestor.Peccia at esa.int Wed May 23 06:31:45 2012 From: Nestor.Peccia at esa.int (Nestor.Peccia@esa.int) Date: Wed May 23 06:25:32 2012 Subject: [CESG] CESG - MOIMS Resolution Nr 2 after last Spring 2012 CCSDS meeting Message-ID: <3610_1337769101_4FBCBC8D_3610_19038_1_OFC4B8E8C4.16323268-ONC1257A07.00382739-C1257A07.003A2E1C@esa.int> CESG Chair The following resolution has been approved by MOIMS AD. ciao nestor ******************************************************************* MOIMS-SMC WG-R-2012-01-002, Resolution recommending the issue for publication of CCSDS 523.1-R-1 MISSION OPERATIONS MESSAGE ABSTRACTION LAYER?JAVA API The MOIMS Area, CONSIDERING that all technical issues after Area and WG review have been successfully dispositioned, in particular those identified during the Agency Review, which are now fully solved. CONSIDERING that all ECSS RIDs )of editorial nature) will be dispositioned by the CCSDS Technical editor (as agreed with him) and RECOGNIZING that all steps recommended by the CCSDS procedures (also including SANA, patent and Security Sections) have been successfully concluded and that this document has the approval of the SMC WG Chair and the full endorsement of the MOIMS AD RECOMMENDS that the CCSDS Engineering Steering Group Chair initiates the required CESG poll for its approval for publication ******************************************************************* The document, updated after the Agency Review, can be found at: http://cwe.ccsds.org/moims/docs/MOIMS-SMandC/Draft%20Documents/MAL%20Java%20API/523x1r1-draft10_Java_MAL_API.doc The document with the differences wrt the version released before the agency review is at: http://cwe.ccsds.org/moims/docs/MOIMS-SMandC/Draft%20Documents/MAL%20Java%20API/523x1r1-draft10_Java_MAL_API_diff.doc All RIDs, except those submitted by ECSS secretariat, have been successfully disposed and the disposition agreed with the RID author. They can be found at: http://cwe.ccsds.org/moims/docs/MOIMS-SMandC/Draft%20Documents/MAL%20Java%20API/CCSDS%20523x1r1%20RID%20Report.doc Due to the editorial nature of the ECSS RIDs and to the fact that sometimes they contradict the CCSDS editing rules, we have agreed with Tom Gannet that he will take care of their disposition. The link to the ECSS RIDs are below: http://cwe.ccsds.org/moims/docs/MOIMS-SMandC/Draft%20Documents/MAL%20Java%20API/521x2r1-Review-ECSS.doc 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/attachments/20120523/7d1d4d49/attachment.htm From erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov Wed May 30 14:41:43 2012 From: erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov (Barkley, Erik J (3170)) Date: Wed May 30 14:35:49 2012 Subject: [CESG] Revised EFCTLU draft Orange Book Message-ID: <9785AD5923A1304EAB8166C9C686D15C03D16D@ap-embx-sp10.RES.AD.JPL> Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 912x11o0_CESG_Approval-response-120406.docx Type: application/octet-stream Size: 431477 bytes Desc: 912x11o0_CESG_Approval-response-120406.docx Url : http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20120530/6ca7e47e/912x11o0_CESG_Approval-response-120406-0001.obj From Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int Thu May 31 04:22:14 2012 From: Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int (Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int) Date: Thu May 31 04:16:17 2012 Subject: [CESG] SLS Area Resolution SLS-R-2012-05-002 131.3-R CCSDS Space Link Protocols over ETSI DVB-S2 Standard Message-ID: <19165_1338452533_4FC72A34_19165_3185_1_OF696EA63B.7AFE275D-ONC1257A0F.002D7E9C-C1257A0F.002DFBFF@esa.int> Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SLS-R-2012-05-002(131.3).v1.0.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 245776 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20120531/058de0e9/SLS-R-2012-05-002131.3.v1.0-0001.obj