[CESG] Re: RID processing for SANA RMP and related documents, CESG Polls closing 21 January 2016
Berry, David S (3920)
david.s.berry at jpl.nasa.gov
Mon Feb 8 16:52:39 UTC 2016
All:
I too consider Peter's dispositions to RIDs on the SANA RMP acceptable.
I do recommend an update to the Organization and Processes document when convenient.
Regards,
David Berry
From: "Scott, Keith L." <kscott at mitre.org<mailto:kscott at mitre.org>>
Date: Monday, February 8, 2016 at 8:47 AM
To: "Shames, Peter M (312B)" <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>>, David Berry <david.s.berry at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:david.s.berry at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Cc: CCSDS Exec <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>>, "Secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:Secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org>" <Secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:Secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org>>
Subject: Re: RID processing for SANA RMP and related documents, CESG Polls closing 21 January 2016
Sorry, yes. I concur with Peter’s dispositions.
—keith
Dr. Keith Scott Office: +1.703.983.6547
Chief Engineer, J86A Fax: +1.703.983.7142
Communications Network Engineering & Analysis Email: kscott at mitre.org<mailto:kscott at mitre.org>
The MITRE Corporation<http://www.mitre.org/>
M/S H300
7515 Colshire Drive
McLean, VA 22102
Area Director, CCSDS<http://www.ccsds.org/> Space Internetworking Services<http://cwe.ccsds.org/sis/default.aspx>
MITRE self-signs its own certificates. Information about the MITRE PKI Certificate Chain is available from http://www.mitre.org/tech/mii/pki/
[cid:28B0EC32-9137-45BD-BC66-E589BC8DC7E5]<http://www.mitre.org/>
From: Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Date: Monday, February 8, 2016 at 11:44 AM
To: "Scott, Keith L." <kscott at mitre.org<mailto:kscott at mitre.org>>, David Berry <david.s.berry at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:david.s.berry at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Subject: Re: RID processing for SANA RMP and related documents, CESG Polls closing 21 January 2016
Would both of you guys please signal your agreement with the dispositioning of the RIDs, as proposed, to the CESG and Secretariat?
They need to hear this directly from you.
Thanks guys, Peter
From: Keith Scott <kscott at mitre.org<mailto:kscott at mitre.org>>
Date: Monday, February 8, 2016 at 8:20 AM
To: Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>>, David Berry <david.s.berry at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:david.s.berry at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Subject: Re: RID processing for SANA RMP and related documents, CESG Polls closing 21 January 2016
So, the next time we crack open the O&P document, I think we should fix it (and maybe MOVE some of the requirements fro the RMP document to it). Until then, ok.
—keith
From: Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Date: Sunday, February 7, 2016 at 12:59 PM
To: David Berry <david.s.berry at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:david.s.berry at jpl.nasa.gov>>, "Scott, Keith L." <kscott at mitre.org<mailto:kscott at mitre.org>>
Subject: Re: RID processing for SANA RMP and related documents, CESG Polls closing 21 January 2016
Hi David (and Keith),
As I said in my note, your careful reading of the doc and feedback were very useful. As much as I grumbled in my head about you submitting 55 RIDS when the whole CESG only submitted 44 in total, I was glad of the care you took, you caught stuff no one else did.
As for the RMP vs the Org & Proc, I do get where you guys are coming from. We all use the Org & Proc as the “Bible” for CCSDS procedures and it is extremely useful for that purpose. But if you look at it and analyze how it is written, it is essentially in a prose style, and has little in the way of procedures (althought it does have some). It also does not have a lot of “requirements” language, but it does have some.
For example, look on pgs 4-1 and 4-2 for the definitions of Member Agency and Observer Agency. Look at the following language from Sec 4.1.2:
No more than one agency representing a given country or multinational organization may participate as a Member Agency of the CCSDS. However, the number of such national or multinational agencies that may participate as Observer Agencies is not limited.
This is easy enough to parse, and it uses the word “may”, but it is not as direct, crisp, or actionable as the following language from the RMP. I greyed out the registry specific parts to focus on the Member Agency requirements, as stated:
3.3.1.1.1 The SANA shall implement a CCSDS Agency Registry as part of the CCSDS Organization Registry.
3.3.1.1.2 The Registration Authority for the CCSDS Agency Registry shall be the CCSDS Secretariat.
3.3.1.1.3 The Registration Policy for the CCSDS Agency Registry shall be c) Change requires no engineering review, but the request must come from the CCSDS Secretariat, the HoD, or the appointed AR for that Agency (cf. reference [5]).
3.3.1.1.4 Each CCSDS Member Agency shall be registered in the CCSDS Agency registry.
3.3.1.1.5 Each Member Agency entry in the CCSDS Agency registry shall have the role
‘Member Agency’.
3.3.1.1.6 Each CCSDS Member Agency entry shall include agency name, abbreviation, logo, address, country, type=‘member’, HoD name, and a unique OID for the agency.
3.3.1.1.7 CCSDS Member Agency participation is subject to approval by the CMC (see subsection 4.1.1 in reference [4]).
3.3.1.1.8 Each country shall have only one CCSDS Member Agency.
3.3.1.1.9 The SANA shall provide a unique OID for each Member Agency.
3.3.1.1.10 The SANA shall update the Organization Registry by synchronizing with the CCSDS Secretariat registry.
3.3.1.1.11 The SANA shall update Member Agency entries in the CCSDS Agency registry only after approval by the CCSDS Secretariat.
3.3.1.1.12 A CCSDS Member may act as the sponsor for one or more Associate Organizations in its country.
3.3.1.1.13 The CCSDS Member Agency HoD for each Member Agency shall act as the Agency CCSDS Management Council (CMC) member.
3.3.1.1.14 Only persons from CCSDS Member Agencies may be CMC members.
I think that the difference between these is vast and telling. The Org & Proc tells a part of the story in more or less prose form. It offers no clarity as to who approves member agencies or manages the process. The RMP provides discrete requirements and direct guidance as to who does what, what the procedures are, and what the approvals are. The RMP is directly actionable, the Org & Proc has to be interpreted and it is only after you consult the CCSDS website that you understand that the Secretariat does the “official registration” and the approvals for Member Agencies.
From http://public.ccsds.org/participation/default.aspx
A CCSDS Member Agency<http://public.ccsds.org/participation/member_agencies.aspx> is a governmental or quasi-governmental organization that fully participates in all CCSDS activities and provides a commensurate level of support. Only one agency representing a given country or multinational organization may participate as a Member Agency of the CCSDS. A Member Agency shall adopt the Charter and must make best efforts to ensure the adherence of their agency’s internal standards to the applicable CCSDS Recommended Standards. Each CCSDS Agency must formally appoint its delegates to the CCSDS technical Working Groups<http://cwe.ccsds.org/> which that Agency supports. Member Agencies are also invited and encouraged to submit concept or position papers for discussion within the working groups.
Perhaps most importantly, Member Agencies have CCSDS voting rights, which are exercised through Member Agency Representatives. Member Agency Representatives make up the CCSDS Management Council (CMC), and meet twice a year to decide on the business and direction of the CCSDS.
For more information about becoming a CCSDS Member Agency, please contact the CCSDS Secretariat<mailto:Secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org?subject=CCSDS%20Member%20Agency%20Request>.
I think it is indisputable that the website adds info that is not in the Org & Proc doc. It is also indisputable that the requirements as to who does what to whom are vague here as well. What I did in the RMP was to assemble all of the relevant requirements, state them in appropriate language, and cast them in a form that was actionable by the parties who have the responsibility.
I do agree that we could add more material into the Org & Proc to make things clearer. Perhaps we should do that, but I note that there is often relunctance to change this doc too quickly or too much. I would support that position if Keith and or others wanted to argue for it, but I would urge that we not stop the momentum that we now seem to have to get the RMP out the door. We need this set of procedures and policies to be in place so that everyone understands them.
Thanks, Peter
From: David Berry <david.s.berry at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:david.s.berry at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Date: Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 5:00 PM
To: Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Subject: Re: RID processing for SANA RMP and related documents, CESG Polls closing 21 January 2016
Peter:
I'm OK with your dispositions, though I do still think that the requirements on the CCSDS organization are out of place (as does Keith Scott)... I just don't think anyone would look in the SANA RMP document to understand how the CCSDS is organized. But I can live with the result.
Thanks for taking my comments into consideration... I appreciate it. Given that they arrived in your inbox after the CESG Review had started, you could have just as well ignored them entirely.
Cheers,
David
From: "Shames, Peter M (312B)" <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Date: Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 1:52 PM
To: CCSDS Secretariat <tomg at aiaa.org<mailto:tomg at aiaa.org>>, CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>>, David Berry <david.s.berry at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:david.s.berry at jpl.nasa.gov>>, Jean-Marc Soula <Jean-Marc.Soula at cnes.fr<mailto:Jean-Marc.Soula at cnes.fr>>
Subject: RID processing for SANA RMP and related documents, CESG Polls closing 21 January 2016
Dear CESG, CCSDS Secretariat, and other RID submitters,
Attached please find the edited versions of the three documents reviewed in CESG-P-2015-12-004, 005, and 006 and the dispositioned sets of RIDs. All of the RIDs were dispositioned and the documents updated in accordance with the RIDs that were submitted. Archove files with the RIDs are attached, as is an archive file with the updated figures for inclusion in the RMP, CCSDS 313.1-Y-1. Aside from the required changes to the SANA registries, the only other outstanding issues are the following:
1. The update to Fig A-1 that I have asked Erik to deal with, since the issues are directly related to registry entries that CSS is directly responsible for.
2. The open question of whether the RMP should be the controlling document, since it does include requirements language for guidance that is otherwise stated in prose form in the CCSDS Org and Proc, or in the CCSDS website.
The last two documents that are attached are the RMP RIDs from David Berry (CRM) and the Glossary of terms for the RMP that he requested. David caught a lot of typos and inconsistent use of terminology. Thanks for the careful reading.
Most of the RIDs that were submitted were relatively minor technical issues, or terminology ambiguities, or editorial in nature. Resolving them has lead to a much better set of documents, and the diligence of all the reviewers who responded is really appreciated.
Please review these RIDs and the proposed dispositions and send an acknowledgement if they are acceptable, or indicate if there are still further issues to be resolved. I’d like to do this no later than 12 Feb 2016. We need to get these documents into the CMC review queue and then start the work to actually re-engineer the SANA (and CCSDS website)registries.
Best regards, Peter
From: <cesg-all-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg-all-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>> on behalf of Tom Gannett <tomg at aiaa.org<mailto:tomg at aiaa.org>>
Date: Friday, January 22, 2016 at 1:15 PM
To: CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG All <cesg-all at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg-all at mailman.ccsds.org>>
Subject: [Cesg-all] Results of CESG Polls closing 21 January 2016
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2015-12-004
Approval to publish CCSDS 313.0-Y-2, Space
Assigned Numbers Authority (SANA)—Role,
Responsibilities, Policies, and Procedures Yellow Book, Issue 2)
Results of CESG poll beginning 18 December 2015 and ending 21 January 2016:
Abstain: 0 (0%)
Approve Unconditionally: 6 (75%) (Behal, Shames, Scott, Cola, Suess, Barton)
Approve with Conditions: 2 (25%) (Barkley, Merri)
Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:
Erik Barkley (Approve with Conditions): 1) From:
"Third Generation Project" To: "Third Generation
Partnership Project"; Rationale: Proper defintion of acronym per 3GPP website
2) Either a) from "registration authority" to
"review authority" or b) revise all existing SANA
registry to revise existing meta data
3) From: "SANA manages only the protocol
registries of the CCSDS," to some phrase that is
consistent with registry classifications in the
RMP. Rationale: The RMP does not formally define
"protocol registries" but defines, "enterprise",
"global", and "local/WG" classes of registries.
Use of RMP classification will help to reduce ambiguity.
4) From: "Programmatic access to the SANA
registries shall be provided via an HTTP/REST
query interface." to some sentence indicating the
HTTP Methods to be supported. Rationale:
Technically, REST is not a protocol, but rather a
style of utilization of HTTP. I suspect that a
"full REST"/Restful web-services capability is
not truly desired, at least not at this time.
"Full REST type capability" allows for HTTP
methods such PUT and POST. I suspect that
probably methods such as GET are really only
intended here. Suggest including a reference in
the document to RFC 2616 and restricting access
to those HTTP methods to be allowed for SANA.
5) From: "Expert Groups are not intended to
require significant resources nor meeting rooms
at bi-annual meetings" to some sort of allowance
for at least a meeting room. Rationale: it is
conceivable that an expert group will have to
meet face-to-face to resolve an issue and agency
budgets/allowance outside of the bi-annual meeting cycle are typically lacking.
6) Remove Annex A. Rationale: the list of
candidate registries is orthogonal to the roles
and responsibility defined herein and is properly identified in the RMP.
1
Mario Merri (Approve with Conditions): I suggest
to add in sec 3.16 also "backup system" or
something similar. Backup must be a mandatory functionality.
Total Respondents: 8
No response was received from the following Area(s):
SLS
SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with Conditions
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate
CMC poll after conditions have been addressed
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2015-12-005
Approval to publish CCSDS 313.1-Y-1, CCSDS SANA
Registry Management Policy (Yellow Book, Issue 1)
Results of CESG poll beginning 18 December 2015 and ending 21 January 2016:
Abstain: 0 (0%)
Approve Unconditionally: 4 (50%) (Shames, Cola, Suess, Barton)
Approve with Conditions: 4 (50%) (Barkley, Merri, Behal, Scott)
Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:
Erik Barkley (Approve with Conditions): Summary of conditions:
1) Minor editorial RIDs
2) Lack of purge policy
3) IOAG RF Assets registry appears to be
duplicative of Sites and Apertures registry in
contradiction to general policy of not having duplicative registries
Detailed conditions are in the attached file.
Mario Merri (Approve with Conditions): 3.4.6.5
Refers to a "CCSDS Common Schema" registries yet
no further reference is made to this or an explanation of what this is.
3.4.6.5 Refers to the use of the "CCSDS
Terminology Registry", it should be made clear
that this shall only be applied to new XML Schema
and only where that would not break
compatibility, or backward compatibility, with
existing relevant XML Schema. For example, a new
revision of a MOIMS Navigation XML Schema shall
not be required to adopt terms if that adoption
would break backwards compatibility with the previous revisions of the schema.
Bigette Behal (Approve with Conditions): The
process to take care of "obsolete" information in
the cross cutting registries should be clarified
(For instance when the "entity" that was the
source/maintainer of the information is no longer active)
Keith Scott (Approve with Conditions): See attached
Total Respondents: 8
No response was received from the following Area(s):
SLS
SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with Conditions
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate
CMC poll after conditions have been addressed
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2015-12-006
Approval to publish CCSDS 313.2-Y-1, Procedures
for SANA Registry Specification (Yellow Book, Issue 1)
Results of CESG poll beginning 18 December 2015 and ending 21 January 2016:
Abstain: 0 (0%)
Approve Unconditionally: 6 (75%) (Merri, Behal, Shames, Cola, Suess, Barton)
Approve with Conditions: 2 (25%) (Barkley, Scott)
Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:
Erik Barkley (Approve with Conditions): One
condition: From: "Registry Authority" To: "Review
Authority". Rationale: Registries currently
available via the SANA website do not list
Registry Authorities, but rather "Review
Authorities". The change makes the procedures and
SANA metadata extant consistent.
A suggestion: CESG verification criteria
guidelines for different classes of registries
(enterprise, global, etc.) will be useful.
A side note for CESG consideration: WGs are often
listed as the SANA Review authorities, however
WGs, are suppose to go out of existence once
their charter has been addressed; it might make
sense to indicate the area rather than the WG as
the review authority as Areas are constituted as standing bodies within CCSDS.
Keith Scott (Approve with Conditions): See attached.
Total Respondents: 8
No response was received from the following Area(s):
SLS
SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with Conditions
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate
CMC poll after conditions have been addressed
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20160208/035afaa2/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 6B72C8A7-BF57-46DC-B33A-CAE20825E097[1].png
Type: image/png
Size: 2755 bytes
Desc: 6B72C8A7-BF57-46DC-B33A-CAE20825E097[1].png
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20160208/035afaa2/attachment.png>
More information about the CESG
mailing list