[CESG] FW: CCSDS-OMG Liaison: Satellite Command & Control Message Specification (C2MS)
Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int
Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int
Thu Aug 30 12:58:51 UTC 2018
Erik,
without going into the technical aspect of this issue, and without
addressing the relevant way forward, which will be discussed at the CESG
Telecon shortly, I would like stress, once again, that the liaison *did*
consult with CESG, and that consensus had , indeed, been achieved.
As per my previous e-mail:
- the topic has been thoroughly presented at the CESG Meeting in
Gaithersburg by MOIMS AD - the presentation is available on the CWE
- CESG concluded that ESA, CNES, and DLR members of the SM&C WG would
produce a Technical Note containing the analysis of the overlap. That TN
shall be used by the OMG Liaison to substantiate the discussion with OMG.
- the sentence above is contained in the MoM,
- that MoM has been out for comments for 5 (five) weeks, without receiving
*any* comment on that topic.
- the MoM is available on the CWE
- M. Merri has forwarded *preliminarily *the Technical Note to CESG ,
for discussion.
- the CESG Chair ( myself) has immediately forwarded that Technical Note
to the CMC
If the above is not acknowledged by the CESG members, I am afraid we have
a serious issue.
Kind regards,
Margherita
--------------------------------------------------------------
Margherita di Giulio
Data Systems Infrastructure Division (OPS-GI)
European Space Agency ESA/ESOC
Robert-Bosch-Str. 5
D-64293 Darmstadt - Germany
Tel: +49-6151-902779
e-mail: Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int
From: "Barkley, Erik J (3970)" <Erik.J.Barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>
To: "Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int" <Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int>
Cc: "cesg at mailman.ccsds.org" <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>, "Tai, Wallace S
(9000)" <Wallace.S.Tai at jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: 24/08/2018 01:29
Subject: RE: [CESG] FW: CCSDS-OMG Liaison: Satellite Command &
Control Message Specification (C2MS)
Dear Margherita,
Thank you for your prompt reply. I appreciate the insights and
clarifications you have provided. I can also appreciate the frustration
with OMG. Nonetheless, I think it is important for liaisons to consult
with CESG or other parties within CCSDS as needed to achieve a consensus
as to how to proceed and/or respond - to me this seems a vital aspect of
the liaison role. For example, given the situation, should CCSDS continue
to develop an informational overlap report rather than work on analysis re
incorporation of what OMG proposes to produce into MO services? I don't
know the answer but it strikes me that a conversation/consensus
development at the level of CESG would help in determining that.
I look forward to reading the notes of the upcoming CESG telecon.
Best regards,
-Erik
From: Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int <Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int>
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2018 20:29
To: Barkley, Erik J (3970) <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: cesg at mailman.ccsds.org; Tai, Wallace S (9000)
<wallace.s.tai at jpl.nasa.gov>
Subject: RE: [CESG] FW: CCSDS-OMG Liaison: Satellite Command & Control
Message Specification (C2MS)
Dear Erik,
I am on leave in these days, so I will (try and) provide an initial
clarification to your point(s), while these will be more comprehensively
discussed during the Telecon – I assume your DAD will be attending.
Basically, the issue had been indeed addressed at the CESG Meeting in
Gaithersburg, where MOIMS AD presented the whole issue in his Area Report,
and the CESG concluded that ESA, CNES, and DLR members of the SM&C WG
shall produce a Technical Note containing the analysis of the overlap.
That TN shall be used by the OMG Liaison to substantiate the discussion
with OMG.
All that is documented in the CESG Meeting’s MoM.
Mario’s intention in his e-mail was only to give a head-up to OMG that
this analysis was coming, knowing that the process of producing the TN,
and then having it reviewed first by CESG, then by CMC will take a certain
time.
However OMG decided to proceed, for the reasons that you can find in their
e-mail, without waiting for the TN.
No doubts about the usefulness of having a CCSDS – OMG liaison, but I
think Mario’s concern was only about the fact that his head-up had not
been considered.
Meanwhile , the TN has been produced and has been distributed to CESG for
comments, and for discussion at the mid-term Telecon. At the same time,
I’ve sent the TN for info to the CMC, and informed about the ongoing
assessment by CESG, This will be followed by assessment by CMC.
Given the fact the OMG already proceeded with the C2MS, all the above may
look superseded by facts. Still, for the sake of coherency and for
completeness of information, the OMG should receive such TN, in case there
will be consensus on that within CCSDS.
I will address this further at the CESG Telecon.
Kind regards,
Margherita
--------------------------------------------------------------
Margherita di Giulio
Data Systems Infrastructure Division (OPS-GI)
European Space Agency ESA/ESOC
Robert-Bosch-Str. 5
D-64293 Darmstadt - Germany
Tel: +49-6151-902779
e-mail: Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int
From: "Barkley, Erik J (3970)" <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>
To: "Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int" <Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int>,
"Tai, Wallace S (9000)" <wallace.s.tai at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: "cesg at mailman.ccsds.org" <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Date: 17/08/2018 00:18
Subject: RE: [CESG] FW: CCSDS-OMG Liaison: Satellite Command &
Control Message Specification (C2MS)
CESG Chairs,
I will be on leave during the teleconference in early September, so I am
sending an email to note a concern that I have.
I am concerned about the exchange listed below between our OMG and CCSDS
liaisons, particularly with statements that appear to have been issued as
the CCSDS liaison without consultation of at least CESG not to mention
CMC.
There may in fact be issues between MOIMS SM+C WG and OMG SDTF. But
CCSDS is not just MOIMS SM+C. My experience is that I have found OMG GEMS
standard to be quite complimentary to the work of the CSS Area and
therefore have found the liaison with OMG to be useful. To me it is
objectionable for the CCSDS liaison to question the usefulness of the
liaison prior to consulting with the rest of CCSDS. From the email
exchange it sounds like OMG provided due process relative to its rules and
governance. As such it can be argued that a strategy session inside CCSDS
should have occurred to assess the situation, provide an analysis of
alternatives and consider other courses of action. For example, perhaps
CCSDS could have considered the opportunities brought forward by their RFC
process rather than unilaterally (without any consultation at the level of
CESG as far as I can tell), calling the liaison into question.
For the record, I will note that we (CESG) have indeed been asked to
comment and review on an analysis prepared by DLR with regard to the CCSDS
MOIMS and OMG SDTF. This is as it should be. But I want to emphasize
this should have occurred prior to any further exchange in the name of
liaison for the all of CCSDS.
Best regards,
-Erik
From: CESG <cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> On Behalf Of
Mario.Merri at esa.int
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 1:27 AM
To: Steve MacLaird <maclaird at omg.org>
Cc: cesg at mailman.ccsds.org; Larry L. Johnson <larry at omg.org>;
danford.s.smith at nasa.gov; space at omg.org; liaison at omg.org;
sam at brightascension.com
Subject: Re: [CESG] FW: CCSDS-OMG Liaison: Satellite Command & Control
Message Specification (C2MS)
Dear Steve,
it is very disappointing that the OMG, after a strenuous discussion of
1.25 hours on my 10 line email, has decided to move forward without
waiting for the analysis in the Technical Note that was announced and is
under finalisation. The motivation adduced for the decision, i.e. that
"the consensus of the Space DTF and OMG AB that the note below was your
position ...", is offensive and reductionist: I deliberatively did not
participate in the WG discussion to avoid influencing. The outcome of the
discussion in the WG, which I reported in my email, is that 3 space
agencies out of 4 that are active in the WG, i.e. 75%, had identified
notable overlaps: it is not my opinion!
Thanks for the offer to provide/clarify the OMG’s P&Ps and processes, but
there is no need. I will consult with the CCSDS Engineering Steering Group
and question the usefulness of a technical liaison between OMG and CCSDS
in these conditions
I will still provide you with the technical note, once available. Please
note that the technical note is also a collective work supported by the
same 3 agencies and it is not even led by ESA.
Regards,
__Mario
From: "Steve MacLaird" <maclaird at omg.org>
To: <Mario.Merri at esa.int>
Date: 22/06/2018 15:35
Subject: FW: CCSDS-OMG Liaison: Satellite Command & Control Message
Specification (C2MS)
Mario –
I rec’d a bounce back that you did not receive the below email
despite the same address.
Steve
Steven A. MacLaird, Col (Ret), USAF
Senior Vice President, Gov't & Industry Strategy
+1 703.231.6335 (USA)
From: Steve MacLaird [mailto:maclaird at omg.org]
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2018 9:22 AM
To: 'Mario.Merri at esa.int '
Cc: 'Larry Johnson'; 'Kizzort, Brad'; 'Luis Rodriquez'; 'Dan Smith';
'sam at brightascension.com'; 'cesg at mailman.ccsds.org'; 'Juergen Boldt'
Subject: FW: CCSDS-OMG Liaison: Satellite Command & Control Message
Specification (C2MS)
Mario –
I wanted to be the first to notify you of the results of the
Object Management Group’s (OMG) Space Domain Task Force (DTF) and
Architecture Board (AB) decisions. Your note created a great deal of
conversation, dialog and debate, since receipt while here in Boston at
OMG’s Quarterly Technical Committee (TC).
Two days ago during the Space DTF, they spent an hour
discussing your email to determine whether or not to forward onto the AB
for vote. The pro’s and con’s were discussed with the largest concern
being if the AB accepted the concerns in your email below and sided with
you, the MCMS RFC would be dead and never allowed to become an RFP.
Therefore the Space DTF’s decision to vote to send to the AB would be very
risky and all avenues and scenarios possible were discussed. In the end,
the MCMS RFC was voted to move to the AB. Please note, on Monday June 18th
, I sent your email below to the AB for their review per the AB Chairman’s
request even though it was sent to me versus the formal process and being
7 days late to the 4 week rule. This allowed all the AB members to review
all the documentation before meeting yesterday afternoon and discussed it
at the AB Plenary on the 18th.
Today during the AB, they had a lengthy and painful discussion
that lasted 1.25 hours on MCMS and your email. Per OMG’s Policies and
Procedures (P&P) your email was reviewed, discussed, debated and
alternatives explored. I want to let you know, that in 1.5 hours
preceding the MCMS discussion, 4 RFCs and 2 RFPs were reviewed. A motion
was made and seconded, discussion followed, amendment made on intellectual
property, and voted on. Before the vote, a dissenting opinion was raised
and explored/discussed when a AB Member called the question for vote.
Eight (8) votes were for the motion, one (1) against and 1 abstained and
the motioned passed to approve the MCMS RFC.
I, the Space DTF, and OMG value your, ESA’s and CCSDS’s inputs
and would like to have a closer collaboration throughout OMG’s and CCSDS
processes. It was the consensus of the Space DTF and OMG AB that the note
below was your position and possibly that of ESA’s. Your email was the
only note of contention received. If I need to clarify OMG’s P&Ps and
processes, I can provide and or put you in touch with the right contacts
to answer your, ESA, CNES or DLA’s questions. Our next meeting will be in
September in Ottawa Canada. You can find out more at www.omg.org.
Take Care -
Steve
Steven A. MacLaird, Col (Ret), USAF
Senior Vice President, Gov't & Industry Strategy
+1 703.231.6335 (USA)
From: Mario.Merri at esa.int [mailto:Mario.Merri at esa.int]
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2018 4:54 AM
To: Steven A. MacLaird
Cc: liaison at omg.org; Larry L. Johnson; space at omg.org;
danford.s.smith at nasa.gov; sam at brightascension.com; cesg at mailman.ccsds.org
Subject: CCSDS-OMG Liaison: Satellite Command & Control Message
Specification (C2MS)
Dear Steve,
in the context of the CCSDS-OMG liaison I would like to inform you that
during the last CCSDS Technical Meetings in Gaithersburg (09-13 April
2018) reservations had been raised on the proposed OMG standard (RFC):
Satellite Command & Control Message Specification (C2MS).
In particular, three space agencies via their members in the CCSDS
Spacecraft & Control Working Group have identified notable overlaps
between the above perspective document and the on-going work of the
working group on Mission Operations (MO) Services. These Space Agencies
(CNES - French Space Agency, DLR - German Space Agency, and ESA - European
Space Agency) are producing a Technical Note to substantiate the overlap,
which will be available in the second half of June.
Clearly, in the spirit of the liaison, both CCSDS and OMG should strive to
avoid overlaps and duplications, in favour of reciprocally adopting
relevant standards, as already done for instance by the CCSDS with the
adoption of the OMG XTCE standard.
Sincerely,
Mario Merri
CCSDS liaison to OMG
―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
ESA – European Space Agency
Dr. Mario MERRI
Head of Mission Data Systems Division (OPS-GD)
Directorate of Operations
European Space Operations Centre - ESOC
Robert-Bosch-Str. 5, D-64293 Darmstadt, Germany
Tel +49 (6151) 90 2292 | Mario.Merri at esa.int | www.esa.int/esoc
―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
This message is sent for information and/or discussion purposes only.
It shall neither be binding nor construed as constituting a commitment for
ESA.
It is intended only for the recipient(s) named above.
It may contain proprietary information and/or protected content.
Any unauthorised disclosure, use, retention or dissemination is
prohibited.
If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender
immediately.
ESA applies appropriate organisational measures to protect personal data.
In case of data privacy queries, please contact the ESA Data Protection
Officer (dpo at esa.int).
Thank you.
This message is sent for information and/or discussion purposes only.
It shall neither be binding nor construed as constituting a commitment for
ESA.
It is intended only for the recipient(s) named above.
It may contain proprietary information and/or protected content.
Any unauthorised disclosure, use, retention or dissemination is
prohibited.
If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender
immediately.
ESA applies appropriate organisational measures to protect personal data.
In case of data privacy queries, please contact the ESA Data Protection
Officer (dpo at esa.int).
Thank you.
This message is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. It may
contain proprietary information and/or
protected content. Any unauthorised disclosure, use, retention or
dissemination is prohibited. If you have received
this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately. ESA applies
appropriate organisational measures to protect
personal data, in case of data privacy queries, please contact the ESA
Data Protection Officer (dpo at esa.int).
This message is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. It may contain proprietary information and/or
protected content. Any unauthorised disclosure, use, retention or dissemination is prohibited. If you have received
this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately. ESA applies appropriate organisational measures to protect
personal data, in case of data privacy queries, please contact the ESA Data Protection Officer (dpo at esa.int).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20180830/f28a16a8/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 26218 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20180830/f28a16a8/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 26218 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20180830/f28a16a8/attachment-0001.png>
More information about the CESG
mailing list