[CESG] Status of GB after CESG Poll: CESG-P-2013-03-004 Approval to publish CCSDS 901.0-G-1, Space Communications Cross Support?Architecture Description Document (Green Book, Issue 1)

[Shames, Peter M (313B)]

Hi Nestor,

I have provided the from/to updates to the docuument to deal with Erik's issues and also with some side issues transmitted from Gippo.  The document is back in Tom's hands for editing prior to sending it out again for CESG review.

Tom will have to tell you what the schedule is, but I believe that he is now working it.

Thanks, Peter



From: Nestor Peccia <Nestor.Peccia at esa.int<mailto:Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>>
Date: Sunday, June 9, 2013 11:04 PM
To: CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>>, Tom Gannett <tomg at aiaa.org<mailto:tomg at aiaa.org>>
Subject: [CESG] Status of GB after CESG Poll: CESG-P-2013-03-004 Approval to publish CCSDS 901.0-G-1, Space Communications Cross Support?Architecture Description Document (Green Book, Issue 1)

Peter, Erik and Tom

Please clarify the current status of the poll and the GB

You will find below the poll results

ciao
nmestor
==========================================

CSS AD  Barkley Erik
 APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS (state conditions that must be satisfied) The document needs a few corrections:

Figure 1-1, Graphical Conventions, and the accompanying NOTES. NOTE 3 states “Organizations are depicted with dashed three-dimensional boxes. Organizational domains are depicted with rounded, dashed, two-dimensional boxes (not shown).
1. There should be an icon in the figure itself for the  organizational domain (rounded, dashed, two-dimensional box), since it is actually used in the document.
2. The Organizational Element icon (dashed three-dimensional box) is not used anywhere in the document. If no use for it can be found, it should  be removed from the SCCS ADD. However, there may be a possible use – see the comments below on figure 2-7.
3. If there is some reason to retain the Organizational Element icon (e.g., because it might be useful in derived models) then it should be defined and differentiated from Organizational Domain. Also, the name in the NOTE (“Organization” ) should be changed to match that of the icon (Organizational Element).


Figure 2.1, Roles of the SCCS Architecture Documents, uses a rounded, dashed, two-dimensional box. Is this really an organization domain? I suppose it may be from the point of view of the architecture itself, but is that the intended meaning? If so its very abstract and does not really parse well -- shoujld   Should the dashed line be removed? Or perhaps a note needs to be added indicating that this is not really an organziational domain?

Figure 2-7 employs organizational domain icons (rounded, dashed, two-dimensional boxes) that are labeled “Service Provider (Provision Management)” and  “Service User (Utilization Management).”  I think that the respective organizational domains are Provider Cross Support System (CSSS) and User CSSS, and Provision Management and Utilization Management  are functions of those.  Same concerns on figure 2-8 and 2-10.

Also, attached, uploaded are more detailed comments from the pre-release version of the document but apply to this official poll version.
MOIMS AD  Peccia Nestor
 APPROVE UNCONDITIONALLY  3/25/2013 11:16 AM

SEA AD  Shames Peter
 APPROVE UNCONDITIONALLY  3/19/2013 10:26 PM







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/20130610/022531c6/attachment.htm