[CESG] Re: [Moims-dai] RE: CESG - MOIMS Resolution Nr 1 after last Fall 2012 CCSDS meeting,

John Garrett John.G.Garrett at nasa.gov
Thu Nov 15 03:05:31 EST 2012

Hi Adrian,

Sorry this message just came in, looks like it was held up along the line 
somewhere.  Since hadn't seen this before and did not get a chance to reply to 
it, it may have led to some misunderstandings.

I agree that we need something with them.
A number of them (such as DEDSL and EAST) are actively being used and are the 
most current versions of CCSDS Standards that we have. There is no proposed 
replacement for them at this point.  Certainly these should remain Blue Books 
until there is a defined replacement.  Effective Standards that were well thought 
out when defined shouldn't be punished because they remain in use and effective 
without needing changes for many years.

Other standards (such as SFDU and XFDU)  are more problematic.  They aren't 
totally replacements for one another.  I would generally recommend XFDU for 
totally new systems although SFDU could also still make sense for NEW projects, 
especially if the data was binary formatted rather than character oriented.   An 
analysis of the actual project should be conducted to determine what best meets 
the needs of the project.  This is sort of like determining what computer 
language you use to program in.  The community didn't convert the FORTRAN 
standard to historical status just because JAVA came along.  We can use either 
one of them to write almost any system, but your particular needs (and the 
choices within your programming shop) determine which tool you will use.

I should also point out that the DAI WG participants did discuss whether to 
re-affirm these and we felt that they remained relevant and we didn't have any 
updates that we felt were necessary at this time for these documents.

Good Health and Much Peace,

P.S. An administrivia question in regard to Silver Books - will we continue to 
reaffirm these as ISO standards?  I assume that we won't, but that is another 
reason to continue these as Blue Books if they are still being actively used.

Good Health and Much Peace,

On 11/13/2012 7:13 PM, Hooke, Adrian J (9000) wrote:
> John: we do have to do **something** with these documents. The problem is that 
> if we move them to Historical status we will thus take them off the Normative 
> Track and put them on the Non-Normative track.  But isn’t that the message that 
> we are trying to send, namely that CCSDS does not recommend these 
> specifications for application to future missions? So if we do re-affirm them 
> now (without review) - with a clear statement that at their next periodic 
> review they will be moved to Historical status - I see no real issue with your 
> 50+ year scenario.  These missions are still going to be able to find the root 
> specifications prominently available on the CCSDS website 
> http://public.ccsds.org/publications/SilverBooks.aspxand that is all that they 
> care about, isn’t it?
> I will raise this concern at the 10 December CMC meeting for their thoughts 
> before making any final decisions, but right now I think that the Silver book 
> solution make sense.
> Best regards
> Adrian
> *From:*John Garrett [mailto:John.G.Garrett at nasa.gov]
> *Sent:* Monday, November 12, 2012 11:53 AM
> *To:* MOIMS-Data Archive Ingestion
> *Cc:* Hooke, Adrian J (9000); Nestor.Peccia at esa.int; CCSDS Secretariat; 
> cesg at mailman.ccsds.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Moims-dai] RE: CESG - MOIMS Resolution Nr 1 after last Fall 
> 2012 CCSDS meeting,
> Hi,
> Why do we need deprecate these to historical at all.
> For example, we have data stored in SFDU format with the intention of it being 
> stored for the long-term, possibly 50 + years.  The SFDU should not be 
> deprecated any more than the Fortran even older COBOL languages standards are 
> disposed of. The standards for the computer languages remain standards, even 
> when other computer languages are adopted for wide-spread use.
> Good Health and Much Peace,
> -JOhn
> On 11/12/2012 11:38 AM, Hooke, Adrian J (9000) wrote:
>     Nestor: when you say “and RECOGNIZING that this will be the last
>     reaffirmation of those books in CCSDS”,  what is to prevent some NEW
>     missions from adopting these books and thus propagating the problem
>     indefinitely? Will they be marked with a warning that they will be
>     deprecated to Historical on such-and-such a date?
>     ///adrian
>     *From:*Nestor.Peccia at esa.int <mailto:Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>
>     [mailto:Nestor.Peccia at esa.int]
>     *Sent:* Monday, November 12, 2012 8:30 AM
>     *To:* Hooke, Adrian J (9000)
>     *Cc:* CCSDS Secretariat; moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org
>     <mailto:moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org>; cesg at mailman.ccsds.org
>     <mailto:cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
>     *Subject:* CESG - MOIMS Resolution Nr 1 after last Fall 2012 CCSDS meeting,
>     CESG Chair
>     The following resolution has been approved by MOIMS AD.
>     ciao
>     nestor
>     *******************************************************************
>     *
>     *MOIMS-DAI WG-R-2012-02-0031, Resolution recommending the reaffirmation of
>     the following CCSDS books
>       * CCSDS 620.0-B-2: Standard Formatted Data Units­ Structure and
>         Construction Rules
>       * CCSDS 622.0-B-1: Standard Formatted Data Units­ Referencing Environment
>       * CCSDS 630.0-B-1: Standard Formatted Data Units ­ Control Authority
>         Procedures
>       * CCSDS 632.0-B-1: Standard Formatted Data Units ­ Control Authority Data
>         Structures
>       * CCSDS 641.0-B-2: Parameter Value Language Specification (CCSD0006 and
>         CCSD0008)
>       * CCSDS 643.0-B-1: ASCII Encoded English (CCSD0002)
>       * CCSDS 647.1-B-1:  Data Entity Dictionary Specification Language
>         (DEDSL)­Abstract Syntax (CCSD0011)
>       * CCSDS 647.2-B-1:  Data Entity Dictionary Specification Language
>         (DEDSL)­PVL Syntax (CCSD0012)
>       * CCSDS 647.3-B-1:  Data Entity Dictionary Specification Language
>         (DEDSL)­ XML/DTD Syntax (CCSD0013 )
>     The MOIMS Area,
>     CONSIDERING the total lack of resources within NASA and ESA to evaluate the
>     changes needed in these books (9)
>     CONSIDERING that several flying missions within different CCSDS Agencies
>     (ESA, CNES, NASA) are using those standards as applicable documents in
>     their Projects
>     CONSIDERING that those missions are totally against to place those
>     standards as historical for the time being
>     CONSIDERING that those missions are close to its end (within the next 3-5
>     years)
>     and RECOGNIZING that this will be the last reaffirmation of those books in
>     CCSDS and
>     RECOGNIZING that this recommendation has been approved by the DAI WG Chair
>     and has the full endorsement of the MOIMS AD
>     RECOMMENDS that the CCSDS Engineering Steering Group Chair initiates the
>     required CESG poll for its approval
>     *******************************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20121115/15b98656/attachment-0001.html

More information about the CESG mailing list