[CESG] FW: Results of CESG Polls closing 14 August 2015

Sun Aug 23 15:11:47 UTC 2015

Erik:

I have reviewed the conditions you have set upon the PRM for changes that
must be made prior to an Agency Review.  I have the following proposals
for addressing your conditions.  (NOTE:  Peter's conditions require a much
more comprehensive response and I am unable to perform them myself... I
have referred Peter's comments to the lead editor).

Erik(1): Due to the way in which the NDM/XML integrated schema is
constructed, I think the namespace header you cite is actually correct.
The master schema referred to imports the required namespace.  Thus I
don't think a change to the existing text is required.  I do agree that
the structure of the NDM/XML integrated schema should be addressed; I
think this structure has complicated and delayed my ability to respond to
John Pietras' concerns about multiple schemas in the same namespace with
the same "oemType".

Erik(2):  I would say that it's a challenge keeping up with the policy
changes "in progress" with the SANA and its registries. In particular, I
have looked at the "Organization" registry that you cite and it is not
nearly complete enough for Navigation WG needs (e.g., "JSpOC" is the major
producer of CDM instantiations and OMM instantiations, the Space Data
Center (SDC) also creates CDMs).  The abbreviation set seems incomplete as
well... is "MSFC" enough? Why isn't "NASA/MSFC" included? Is "ESA" enough?
 CDMs are planned for production by "ESA_ESAC", and OEMs are produced by
"ESOC". I don't feel it is possible to refer to this "organization"
registry in a CCSDS Red Book until it is an "approved" registry; right now
it is still a "candidate". What are the plans for "completing" this
registry and moving it to approved status?  Nonetheless, I will provide
some text for Tom to apply to the SANA annex.

Erik(3): Maybe there should be a simple, standard registration rule that
all registry change proposals are submitted to the SANA Operator, who will
determine who will act upon them. Then if the WG still exists, the SANA
refers the proposal to the WG Chair; if the WG does not still exist, the
SANA sends the proposal to the applicable AD; if the Area no longer
exists, the SANA sends the proposal to the CESG. Then everyone can have
change proposals to any registry arbitrated by the SANA (can we assume it
has persistence?). I will supply a new registration rule for Tom to apply
to the Agency Review copy that indicates change requests should be
submitted to sanaregistry.org.   (Aside:  given what you say about WG's
not being standing bodies within the CCSDS, which I do acknowledge, it is
a bit puzzling that the CESG Chair has requested WG Chairs to put "Draft
Projects" into the project framework
(http://cwe.ccsds.org/fm/Lists/Projects/AllOpenChartersWithDraftProjects.as
px), and also update 5 year plans at each Plenary... these provide an
excellent vehicle for perpetuating a WG.  But OK...).

Regards,

David

On 8/17/15, 2:07 PM, "Thomas Gannett" <tomg at aiaa.org> wrote:

>David:
>
>The CESG poll to approve release of CCSDS 509.0-R-1, Pointing Request
>Message (Red Book, Issue 1) for CCSDS Agency review concluded with
>conditions (stated below--Peter's markup of the PDF CESG approval
>copy is attached). I have also attached the Word file for the current
>version.
>
>I suggest you negotiate dispositions for the conditions directly with
>Peter and Erik; CC me and cesg at mailman.ccsds.org in all correspondence.
>
>(I had hoped we could complete the review before the fall meetings,
>but that is pretty unlikely now, unless conditions can be resolved this
>week.)
>
>Tom
>
>
>>CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2015-07-006 Approval to release CCSDS
>>509.0-R-1, Pointing Request Message (Red Book, Issue 1) for CCSDS Agency
>>review
>>Results of CESG poll beginning 31 July 2015 and ending 14 August 2015:
>>
>>                  Abstain:  1 (14.29%) (Calzolari)
>>  Approve Unconditionally:  4 (57.14%) (Merri, Behal, Suess, Barton)
>>  Approve with Conditions:  2 (28.57%) (Barkley, Shames)
>>  Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)
>>
>>CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:
>>
>>Erik Barkley (Approve with Conditions): Some conditions and some
>>comments.
>>
>>Conditions:
>>
>>1) CCSDS has defined a URN for, among other things, management of
>>XML Schemas. As such a no namespace schema is not really allowed.
>>The XML Schema (or sub-schemas depending on desired organization)
>>need to have a namespace definition.
>>
>>2) SANA considerations part 1: In addition to registering the schema
>>(which is good), the recommendation makes use of data items for
>>which there are controlled CCSDS registries. This includes such items as:
>>a) spacecraft name
>>(http://sanaregistry.org/r/spacecraftid/spacecraftid.html)
>>b) Originator -- there is a registry in progress for this
>>http://sanaregistry.org/r/organizations/organizations.html
>>
>>But these are not called out in the SANA considerations sections.
>>
>>3) SANA considerations part 2: -- by definition, WGs are not
>>supposed to be standing bodies within CCSDS. That being the case a
>>different management policy for registration control authority for
>>controlled information that can outlive a working group other than
>>communication the WG chair should to be stated. It is suggested to
>>contact the CCSDS SE Area for a better definition of this as SANA
>>registry policy is currently being revised by the SE Area.
>>
>>Comments (not conditions):
>>1) Although the principal investigator and relay communications are
>>cited as use cases, its not clear how this fits a with a bigger
>>picture of mission operations in general. Is the PRM really
>>something to be emitted by a PI? Presumably the antenna pointing
>>on-board the spacecraft is in fact then further sequenced as part of
>>an overall spacecraft operations planning taking into account
>>keep-out zones, spacecraft fault protection etc. Perhaps this may
>>just be an issue of terminology -- its seems that is not really a
>>request to point an antenna but really a request to have the
>>spacecraft antenna track a particular target or motion pattern? It
>>would be interesting to learn more of the conceptual background and
>>how this fits with the overall MOIMS architecture.
>>
>>Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions): This document is quite
>>mature, but it contains a significant number of issues that should
>>be resolved before it goes out for agency review. Key issues:
>>1) Two annexes are marked information but contain what appears to be
>>normative materials
>>2) There are a number of points at which references are made to "do
>>it in an ICD" instead of providing clear definitions. A means of
>>providing extensibility points, and even a SANA registry, would be
>>prefered.
>>3) There are a number of items, such as "originator", "spacecraft",
>>or other identifiers that are weakly specified. Where possible
>>existing SANA registries should be referenced.
>>4) There are many terms used in this spec that are not defined or
>>not adequately defined.
>>5) There is no ICS.
>>
>>See the attached document for additional comments and specific
>>suggestions for remedying these issues.
>>
>>
>>Total Respondents: 7
>>No response was received from the following Area(s):
>>
>>SIS
>>
>>SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Approved with Conditions
>>PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            Generate CMC poll after
>>conditions have been addressed
>>
>>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>CESG-all mailing list
>>CESG-all at mailman.ccsds.org
>>http://mailman.ccsds.org/mailman/listinfo/cesg-all
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Secretariat mailing list
>>Secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org
>>http://mailman.ccsds.org/mailman/listinfo/secretariat
>
>Thomas Gannett
>+1 443 472 0805 