[CESG] CCSDS Additional comments on IOAG SC # 1

[Nestor.Peccia at esa.int]

Dear all,

Please find below the IOAG responses to the SC#1 comments raised by us.

ciao
nestor
----- Forwarded by Nestor Peccia/esoc/ESA on 05/10/2016 08:08 -----

From:   Gian Paolo Calzolari/esoc/ESA
To:     Nestor Peccia/esoc/ESA at ESA
Cc:     "Adde, Barbara (HQ-CG000)" <barbara.adde at nasa.gov>, "Jean-Marc 
Soula" <Jean-Marc.Soula at cnes.fr>, Michael Schmidt/esoc/ESA at ESA
Date:   04/10/2016 23:20
Subject:        Re: Additional comments on IOAG SC # 1


Nestor,
        here the replies.
Regards

Gian Paolo & Jean Marc

C: As reported at the Darmstadt meetings, fall 2015, The CSSM Service 
Catalog will be a magenta book. 
R: It will be corrected in the next version. It was blue in CWE when the 
catalog was prepared.

C:  Indeed. There is likely also a need for ancillary management 
information. For example, some sort of metadata to indicate radiation time 
and an ability to manage the file packets itself should the mission decide 
that indeed these are not to be related to the spacecraft etc.
R: We do agree on the need for ancillary management information. The text 
following the marked statement says in fact "The ancillary information and 
the reporting will be provided as part of Service Agreement, and/or via 
Service Management services, and/or via a more ¡§specialized¡¨ file service 
(i.e. [FPFS]) and/or via metadata transferred with [CFXS]. As long as 
details on the [CFXS] and [FPFS] are not fully defined by CCSDS, both 
standards are mentioned in this document." 
Is this not sufficient to remark  the need for ancillary management 
information?

C: Just curious as to why its listed if it has been removed.  Okay, but 
perhaps just the change log is enough? 
R: The section was left there to avoid heavy section renumbering with 
implied problems. Moreover the explicit text would make easier the 
tracking for anybody looking for that service.

C: There is probably additional metadata needed here to indicate that the 
mapping for the creation of the file of packets. For example, do packets 
of multiple APIDs map into one file or are these separated into different 
files, etc. It strikes me that this may be something to be considered at a 
higher level service catalog rather than service catalog one. Although I 
did not make the remark for the forward file of packets that may also hold 
as well in terms of proper service catalog "home".
R: Agreed. However the list is declared to be incomplete as stated by the 
use of the formulation "e.g." ("This ancillary information is expected to 
include e.g. „Í whether the file contains Space Packets or Encapsulation 
Packets....................". Is there any need of remarking this more 
evidently? In general the details are left to the CCSDS designers of the 
standard(s).





From:   Nestor Peccia/esoc/ESA
To:     Michael Schmidt/esoc/ESA at ESA
Cc:     "Adde, Barbara (HQ-CG000)" <barbara.adde at nasa.gov>, Gian Paolo 
Calzolari/esoc/ESA at ESA, "Jean-Marc Soula" <Jean-Marc.Soula at cnes.fr>
Date:   28/09/2016 11:46
Subject:        Additional comments on IOAG SC # 1


Michael

Please find attached a marked-up SC # 1 document including some additional 
comments from the CCSDS CSS Area Chair

[attachment "IOAG Service Catalog 
One.v2.0-Approved-20160823-comments-eb-15-Sep-2016.pdf" deleted by Gian 
Paolo Calzolari/esoc/ESA] 

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/20161005/18598176/attachment.html>