[CESG] CESG-P-2017-07-004 Conditions

Sun Oct 29 22:51:15 UTC 2017

Dear CESG Members:

Conditions for approval of CESG-P-2017-07-004 Approval to release CCSDS
921.2-R-1, Guidelines for Specifications of Cross Support Transfer Services
(Red Book, Issue 1) for CCSDS Agency review have been resolved to the
satisfaction of the ADs who voted to approve with conditions. The
Secretariat will now proceed with CMC polling.

Thomas Gannett

thomas.gannett at tgannett.net

+1 443 472 0805

From:  <mailto:Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int> Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int [
<mailto:Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int> mailto:Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 4:43 AM
To:  <mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net> thomas.gannett at tgannett.net
Cc: Barkley, Erik;  <mailto:wo_._he at t-online.de> wo_._he at t-online.de;
<mailto:Holger.Dreihahn at esa.int> Holger.Dreihahn at esa.int
Subject: Fw: Draft responses to your CSTS "Guidelines" PIDs and comments

Dear Tom, 
after a long processing time, it appears that the PIDs that were raised to
"CSTS Guidelines" (CCSDS 921.2-R-0)  at the CESG Poll, have been resolved. 

1) PIDs which were raised by SEA AD , have all but one been turned into
modifications to the text. 
For the remaining one, it is agreed that this will be addressed at the The
Hague meeting, and will possibly be turned into a RID to be submitted during
Agency Review 

2) PIDs which were raise by MOIMS AD have been discussed and agreed with the
originator. Please see Mario's email from 5th October. 

Given the above, we assume that the "Guidelines " book can now proceed
towards  Agency Review as RED-1 . 
I attach hereto the updated version. 

Thank you, kind regards, 
Margherita 

--------------------------------------------------------------
Margherita di Giulio 
Ground Station Back-end Section (OPS-GIB)

European Space Agency ESA/ESOC
Robert-Bosch-Str. 5
D-64293 Darmstadt - Germany
Tel: +49-6151-902779
e-mail:  <mailto:Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int> Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int

----- Forwarded by Margherita di Giulio/esoc/ESA on 11/10/2017 10:15 ----- 

From:        "Shames, Peter M (312B)" < <mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov> 
To:        " <mailto:wo_._he at t-online.de> wo_._he at t-online.de" <
<mailto:wo_._he at t-online.de> wo_._he at t-online.de> 
Cc:        " <mailto:Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int>
Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int" < <mailto:Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int>
Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int>, " <mailto:Holger.Dreihahn at esa.int>
Holger.Dreihahn at esa.int" < <mailto:Holger.Dreihahn at esa.int>
Holger.Dreihahn at esa.int> 
Date:        09/10/2017 18:21 
Subject:        Re: Draft responses to your CSTS "Guidelines" PIDs and
comments 

  _____  

Hi Wolfgang, 

In principle, I am completely against having CESG PIDs shuffled off and
treated as agency reviews inputs.  They are entirely different in nature and
intent. 

That said, in the case of item 16, which is related to use of the SANA
registries, I do understand that this will require some further discussion
and that it is also a topic that will be in the "don't care" or "I don't
understand this" category for most agency reviewers.  My proposed resolution
is that we agree to work this during the meeting in the Hague and agree to
document the outcome of that discussion in WG revisions to the document
following the agency review.  If you wish to memorialize that agreement as
an "Agency RID" that is your call. 

With that agreement I concur with releasing the document for review. 

Thanks, Peter 

From: Wolfgang Hell < <mailto:wo_._he at t-online.de> wo_._he at t-online.de>
Reply-To: Wolfgang Hell < <mailto:wo_._he at t-online.de> wo_._he at t-online.de>
Date: Monday, October 9, 2017 at 5:42 AM
To: Peter Shames < <mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: " <mailto:Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int> Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int" <
<mailto:Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int> Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int>, "
<mailto:Holger.Dreihahn at esa.int> Holger.Dreihahn at esa.int" <
<mailto:Holger.Dreihahn at esa.int> Holger.Dreihahn at esa.int>
Subject: Fwd: Re: Draft responses to your CSTS "Guidelines" PIDs and
comments 

Hi Peter, 

I understand from Margherita that she discussed my proposed responses to the
MOIMS PIDs with Mario and that those responses clarified the issues so that
based on that those PIDs can be retired. 

Given that we would like to proceed with getting the "Guidelines" published
as Red-1 for Agency review. However, to that end we also would like to come
to a conclusion regarding your PIDs and comments. Can you please let us know
if you are okay with us going ahead with the publication of that book in
accordance with the understanding that I had outlined in the email below? 
Thanks and best regards,

Wolfgang

-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- 

Betreff: 

Re: Draft responses to your CSTS "Guidelines" PIDs and comments 

Datum: 

Thu, 21 Sep 2017 09:31:49 +0200 

Von: 

Wolfgang Hell  <mailto:wo_._he at t-online.de> <wo_._he at t-online.de> 

Antwort an: 

 <mailto:wo_._he at t-online.de> wo_._he at t-online.de 

An: 

Shames, Peter M (312B)  <mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
<peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov> 

Kopie (CC): 

 <mailto:Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int> Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int
<mailto:Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int> <Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int>,
<mailto:Holger.Dreihahn at esa.int> Holger.Dreihahn at esa.int
<mailto:Holger.Dreihahn at esa.int> <Holger.Dreihahn at esa.int>

Hi Peter,

Thank you for your feedback. Please find attached the updated Guidelines
document where I believe that the changes close Ref-No. 1 and 2, 4 to 8, 11,
14 and 15 of the SEA PIDs / comments spreadsheet. 

Regarding Ref-No. 3, 9 and 10 I agree that this is a terminology issue. The
reason why we opted for the term "abstract" rather than "generic" is that
the purpose of an abstract procedure or service is similar to an abstract
class in object-oriented programming. Both are there not for being used as
such but for inheritance because they represent commonly needed functions or
interaction patterns. Therefore I would prefer to retain the term
"abstract". In addition, this terminology has been used in the already
published Framework document and deviating from that now in the Guidelines
would be confusing or require updating of the Framework.

Regarding Ref-No. 12, your response shows that we have not been clear enough
in the Guidelines because your proposed text isn't the message we wanted to
get across. I therefore tweaked the language a bit and hope that now the
point is clear. Please note also that a procedure derived from a
service-original (individual) procedure should not be referred to as
individual procedure because it was not created starting from scratch.

Regarding Ref-No. 13, we could identify one procedure in the figures in
section 2 as being the prime procedure (type). But the selection of that
procedure type would be somewhat arbitrary and the prime procedure concept
is not the topic being discussed in section 2 and therefore showing prime
procedures in those figures might be more confusing than helpful. But to
help the reader, I have added a cross reference to 3.1.2 b) pointing to the
definition of the term "prime procedure instance".

Regarding Ref-No. 16, I'll be happy to add such material, but I'm not fully
clear what exactly you would like to see added here. Probably the most
efficient way for sorting this out is that we talk about it at the The Hague
meeting. However, I would not like to delay the processing of the Guidelines
book more than necessary. Would you be willing to retire your comment at
this point and we then inject the additional material by means of a RID
raised as part of the Red-1 review?

Best regards,
Wolfgang

Am 20.09.2017 um 02:34 schrieb Shames, Peter M (312B): 
Hi Wolfgang, 

Sorry for the delay in responding to this request.  As you note, it came in
when I was on vacation and it seems I was not diligent in mining the backlog
for items that needed to be addressed. 

Attached are my responses.  There are a few remaining things that I think we
can easily clean up. 

Best regards, Peter 

From: Wolfgang Hell  <mailto:wo_._he at t-online.de> <wo_._he at t-online.de>
Reply-To: Wolfgang Hell  <mailto:wo_._he at t-online.de> <wo_._he at t-online.de>
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 1:57 AM
To: Peter Shames  <mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
<peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc:  <mailto:Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int> "Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int"
<mailto:Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int> <Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int>,
<mailto:Holger.Dreihahn at esa.int> "Holger.Dreihahn at esa.int"
<mailto:Holger.Dreihahn at esa.int> <Holger.Dreihahn at esa.int>, Wolfgang Hell
<mailto:wo_._he at t-online.de> <wo_._he at t-online.de>
Subject: Fwd: Draft responses to your CSTS "Guidelines" PIDs and comments 

Dear Peter, 
as the automatic reply that I received when I had sent you the email below
told me you were on vacation at the time. Did you get the chance in the
meantime to have a look at the responses to your comments on the CSTS
Guidelines document? Next week we'll have a CSTS WG telecon and therefore it
would be useful to have a feeling about the effort it will take to update
the Guidelines document as needed (regardless of the color the book will
have in the end). 

Thank you in advance for taking a look at this.

Best regards,
Wolfgang 

-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- 

Betreff: 

Draft responses to your CSTS "Guidelines" PIDs and comments 

Datum: 

Wed, 30 Aug 2017 17:06:03 +0200 

Von: 

Wolfgang Hell  <mailto:wo_._he at t-online.de> <wo_._he at t-online.de> 

Antwort an: 

 <mailto:wo_._he at t-online.de> wo_._he at t-online.de 

An: 

Shames, Peter M (312B)  <mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
<peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov> 

Kopie (CC): 

 <mailto:Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int> Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int
<mailto:Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int> <Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int>,
<mailto:Holger.Dreihahn at esa.int> Holger.Dreihahn at esa.int
<mailto:Holger.Dreihahn at esa.int> <Holger.Dreihahn at esa.int>, Barkley, Erik J
(3970)  <mailto:erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov> <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>,
<mailto:wo_._he at t-online.de> wo_._he at t-online.de

Dear Peter, 

please find attached a spreadsheet with the draft responses to the PID 
and comments regarding 921x2. I realize that the "Magenta vs Yellow" 
discussion may require a dedicated discussion, but regardless I wanted 
to share my thoughts on that topic with you (Ref.-No. 1). For the other 
items I expect that we can fairly easily come to an agreement. The only 
exception in this respect may be Ref.-No. 11, where unfortunately I fail 
to understand what you are proposing. 

Best regards, 

Wolfgang 

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/20171029/bc039879/attachment.html>