[CESG] New version of the CCSSD Strategic Plan

[Shames, Peter M (313B)]

Nestor,

All seems acceptable.  Looks like we have a number of items to discuss at Bordeaux.

Do you propose to re-publish the document now and then update after Bordeaux, or to wait until the CESG has had a chance to discuss it all in France?

Best regards, Peter


From: Nestor Peccia <Nestor.Peccia at esa.int<mailto:Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>>
Date: Monday, March 4, 2013 9:08 AM
To: Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Cc: CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>>, Erik Barkley <Erik.J.Barkley at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:Erik.J.Barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Subject: Re: [CESG] New version of the CCSSD Strategic Plan

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/20130304/9f2f0447/attachment-0001.htm