[CESG] New version of the CCSSD Strategic Plan

[Nestor.Peccia at esa.int]

Peter and Erik

Thanks for the redlined version and the comments.

I would like first of all to give the rationale of issuing today the 
Strategic Plan.

It is worth to have this new version than the 2006 one (even with some 
unresolved issues). Comments from all Areas have been included.
CCSDS has established during the Orlando meeting a "Big picture" 
Group.This new strategic Plan version will help them (more details at 
Bordeaux)

You will find below my comments.

Erik's comments
 
the overall strategic plan lists such goals as ?large and measurable 
majority of all civilian spacecraft? etc. utilizing CCSDS recommendations 
in the 2016 and another goal of 40% ?all? spacecraft in the 2020 
timeframe.  It is nice to say that we will measure things but then there 
is no discussion of how this is to be measured..  Also, there is no 
statement as to what the current ?gaps? are relative to achieving the 2016 
goal, and therefore no real sense of how much work we need to do. 
[Nestor] Agreed. I took out the word measurable for the time being. To be 
discussed at bordeaux.
 
CCSDS in recent years has established SANA operations. There is no 
discussion of this in any of the area charters or in the overall CCSDS 
strategic plan. I believe some discussion of this should be here with 
regard to overall strategy. Perhaps to assist with my first comment we may 
wish to consider that SANA could become part of the measurement strategy. 
We already have all of the spacecraft identifiers, to the best of my 
knowledge, registered in SANA.  Perhaps the CMC would like to consider an 
additional step of having mission utilization of recommendations 
registered in SANA.  It seems that this could begin to form the basis of 
determining what recommendations are adopted by what missions. Granted it 
does require a fair amount of work and process to be figured out but 
perhaps this could be one of the strategic goal of SANA (i.e. to help 
foster measurability of CCSDS standards utilization).
[Nestor] Sana added. To be discussed at Bordeaux.
 
a suggestion:  how about organizing each of the area?s objectives and 
goals in a time ordered fashion ? it seems to me that would allow the 
reader to understand the logic for some of the area goals a little bit 
better. Maybe that is just an editing function?
[Nestor] Fully agreed. I was thinking in some graphical way, but it is 
time consuming. To be discussed at Bordeaux.

a bit specific, but inter-area:  the cross support architecture, although 
listed as a strategic goal for the systems engineering area is in fact 
being carried out in the cross support services area to the best of my 
knowledge. I have booked this in the cross support services area in my 
update. I will agree that this is a strategic goal for the systems 
engineering area in general ? does this mean that we are going to transfer 
this working group to a different area?
[Nestor] I believe it belongs to SEA. If you and Peter agree, I would 
recommend to transfer it to SEA.
 
I believe some further work is probably required on inter-area strategic 
alignment. A case in point is that the SLS area lists development on 
standards regard to MSPA techniques. I can tell you that MSPA tends to be 
a service management nightmare -- at least as far as DSN management goes 
with regard to Mars ? it is the most complicated scenario.  I have 
adjusted the cross support services area to properly complement the 
strategic goal that is listed for SLS.  Also, I would not all be surprised 
to see proper SSI management span SIS, CSS, and MOIMS.  I believe this 
will be an interesting discussion at the CESG Bordeaux meeting.
[Nestor] To be discussed at Bordeaux.

Peter's comments
 "metrics" but no means or plan to measure them.  They do sound good, and 
I'd not propose taking them out, but we might want to try and define some 
task that actually measures how well we are doing.  Of course, this can 
easily turn into yet another unfunded mandate.
[Nestor] Dangerous. It can backfired to us. To be discussed at Bordeaux. I 
have taken out of the text the word "measurable"

We should add something about how we see SANA participating in CCSDS since 
it is taking an increasingly important role. 
[Nestor] OK. added

Secretariat function.  In fact, maybe we need a section about secretariat 
functions, including web site, SANA, chief tech editor, publications, etc. 
 These are important (and costly), but are not mentioned even though they 
are essential to the operations of CCSDS.
[Nestor] My humble opinion is that this is an strategic plan and secretary 
functions belongs more to operations (not strategy). To be discussed at 
Bordeaux.

That cross support architecture item Erik mentioned is a peculiar one.  It 
really is SEA work, but it got housed in CSS.  And then it got staffed 
essentially by Takahiro and me, the SEA AD and DAD.  It's more than a a 
bit ironic, but it is a CSS area task at this point.
[Nestor] Fully agreed. It belongs to SEA

As for SEA tasks, I left them as they are and added one that I think we 
will get some actual support for, the timeline exchange.  Two of the other 
tasks are really ambitious given the level of support that has been 
typically been provided by CCSDS agencies for SEA tasks.  These, reference 
information architecture, and time services architecture are needed, that 
is not the issue. But finding the resources to accomplish them in a timely 
way seems problematic at best.  I'd leave them in the list, but let's all 
recognize that they are highly speculative given recent history.
[Nestor] Agreed.

I do not know what the "CCSDS Open Source Library" is nor where it might 
live. 
[Nestor] CCSDS SW libraries implementing oyur standards and living under 
SANA. To be discussed at Bordeaux.

I question if we want to state outright that we will develop an new 
optical comm link layer instead of figuring out how we might make the new, 
unified, "Space Data Link Protocol integrating the best features of TM, 
TC, AOS, and Proximity-1 and providing a common link layer transfer frame 
format able to satisfy future space data link needs" do the job.  There is 
also in SLS what looks like a MOIMS-style data exchange spec for weather 
that I thought was already under discussion within the Nav WG, but I might 
be mistaken.
[Nestor] To be discussed at Bordeaux.

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/20130304/bc7145f3/attachment.htm