[CESG] CMC comments on the Strategic Plan and CWE

[Nestor.Peccia at esa.int]

R E M I N D E R 
=============

Dear all,

I suggest the following approach to respond to CMC comments

General Part
To be addressed in the CESG general presentation to the CMC.
@ CESG to discuss it on Monday 17th Nov

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
SUGGESTION 1: the CSEG should be tasked to periodically revisit the FP 
items identified in the extended SP as ?Future Work?, so making the FP a 
live management tool.
SUGGESTION 2: the process to integrate the external requirements in the 
CCSDS WP, as part of the FP, should be developed, so that schedules, 
priorities and resources for the added work may be discussed and 
arbitrations be made, in view of the other on-going or          planned 
activities.
SUGGESTION 3: The structure of the CCSDS may be revisited taking into 
account the following:
?       The work programme envisaged in each area in the mid to long terms 
(2020)
?       Overlap should be minimised, by fostering reuse across WGs and 
Areas and by better understanding the CCSDS work assignments and the 
organization?s future objectives
?       A reference architecture for the CCSDS standards should be 
developed and used as an overall blueprint for the organization to prevent 
future overlap.
SUGGESTION 4:  a solution must be found to generate the RMP automatically 
after the revisions of the FW or SP are made.
SUGGESTION 5:  it would be helpful if the mapping presented in the RMP is 
double checked by the AD?s and validated at CESG level, when instrumented 
as per suggestion 3.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I suggest that you include in your Area presentation the responses to 
their questions

@ Peter
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1.      The standards on security architecture and D-DOR will be completed 
by 2016. No other standards are currently approved beyond 2016. Goals 
achieved?
2.      SEA plan of work does contain approved documents for XML schemas 
although this is needed in all areas, in particular CS, MOIS and SOIS. Is 
this an issue?
3.      SEA midterm focus  (2017) is on timeline exchange (overlap with MO 
M&C / MAL). Issue to be resolved
4.      SEA long term plan is to standardise time services; this was 
discussed a long time ago in CMC but no decision yet. A decision is needed 
in order to ensure resource availability
5.      Goal #7 CCSDS Standards  Reference Architecture is a project not 
approved.  This project is considered as high priority and should be 
started asap. This decision should be taken by the CMC in the very near 
future. 6.      Security: key management BB is behind schedule and should 
terminate 2017. Is this an issue for other WGs (e.g.: interdependency with 
SLS / SDLS)?
7.      XML SIG is still a SIG while standards should be produced within 2 
years: is there an issue as the WG(s) is (are) still to be created?
8.      Only Security and DDOR are approved WGs/Projects; Timelines and 
XML SIG could / should start soon, while not yet present in the FW. 
        In this context, is it wise to authorize the new Architecture 
activities (goals 3 and 7) which, in the past have always suffered a lack 
of resources, in the proposed schedule? 
        Where are the priorities? Is there a risk to delay or interfere 
with one or the other of the approved / engaged activities?
9.      Security and DDOR WGs have no activities identified as part of FP 
beyond 2016. Is it anticipated that all goals will then be achieved and 
the group has no further activity ?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

@ Nestor
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1.      Goal 5 ?Digital Repository Criteria? completed (no current/future 
work)
2.      Data and Metadata External Framework standards and Data Archival 
and Retrieval work is ending in 2016. Goals achieved?
3.      Mid-term objectives (2017-2018) only for MO services; they are 
linked to the standards on technology mapping and binding. The resources 
needed for this work should be assessed.
4.      No long terms objectives (2019-2020) defined, although MO services 
are likely to take longer
5.      Most of the MO services BB?s in the CWE are not started and/or are 
behind schedule. What is the strategy proposed to progress these projects? 
Will the IOAG / MOSSG inputs on service priorities be considered        to 
reschedule the parallel tasks?
6.      Workplan for Tele-robotics defined?
        NAV and DAI WGs have no activities identified as part of FP beyond 
2016.  Is it anticipated that all goals will then be achieved and the 
group has no further activity ?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

@ Erik
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1.      All activities in the FW are behind schedule for the CSTS WG. 
Nevertheless, this group still shows a long list of parallel activities to 
be conducted. What is the strategy proposed to progress these projects or, 
        preferably, to prioritize a few of them so that at      least some 
CSTS standards may be proposed to users? 
2.      Extensible Terrestrial data Transfer services : approved 
activities are almost completed (in 2015).  With the exception of Tracking 
Data CSTS  BB no projects are approved.  When and what should be 
considered      in 2015 onwards  related to this goal?
3.      Generic File Transfer to be moved to CSS Goal #4. Will this goal 
have been achieved on completion of this standard by 2015?
4.      Service Management goals defined in the long term, but only 2 
documents approved. Decision required for the approval of these projects 
on the basis of a resource assessment.
5.      CSS CS-SM projects have target dates in the SP, as part of the FP. 
Nothing similar exists in the FW where status and target dates are blank. 
When will a tentative schedule be confirmed?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

@ Gippo
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1.      All WGs have a schedule which minimize the parallel activities. 
Prioritization seems to be made upfront.
2.      Data compression and SDLS WGs have no activities identified in the 
RMP as part of FP beyond 2015 / 2016. However, the FW shows target dates 
beyond those (2017 / 2016).  Is it anticipated that all goals will then be 
achieved and the group has no further   activity ?
3.      Mid-long term is the Next generation Space Data Link protocol. 
What are the resources required for this development by 2018. Are they 
confirmed?
4.      Optical Communications seems to be the main/only longer term 
activity. Is this endorsed by the CMC?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

@ Keith
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1.      SIS Goal 1 ?Use of Internet standards? has no associated workplan. 
Has the goal been achieved?
2.      Application Layer protocols: no work is planed beyond 2015. Has 
the goal been achieved?
3.      Goal #2 solar system Internet: No approved project beyond 2017. 
What should be approved to achieve this goal. What are the resources 
needed? 
4.      The FW reflects projects behind schedule and target dates quite 
earlier than those in the RMP/SP. An alignment is required.
5.      Contact graph and Bundle security projects have target dates in 
the RMP/SP, as part of the FP. Nothing similar exists in the FW where 
status and target dates are blank. When will a tentative schedule be 
confirmed?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

@  Chris
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1.      Appl. Support WGs has no activities identified as part of FP 
beyond 2015.  Is it anticipated that all goals will then be achieved and 
the group has no further activity ?
2.      The SOIS Area has only one WG (Wireless) and no activities 
identified as part of FP beyond 2017. Is it anticipated that all goals 
will then be achieved and the group has no further activity ?
3.      Should the group be disbanded earlier and the WG activities be 
re-allocated to another area (Wireless ? SLS?)?
4.      More globally, only short term (2014-2015) workplan defined. Is 
this area required beyond 2015? Should  CCSDS maintain a role in onboard 
interface standards?
5.      Future developments for onboard  ?Standard Avionics Architectures? 
were mentioned in the 2014 CMC spring meeting (SUMO). Is this a viable 
direction; should CCSDS get involved in standardising onboard 
architectures?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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/20141114/14e004d3/attachment.html>