[CESG] FW: Response to Conditions on the CESG Poll for Re-Entry Data Message Agency Review

Thomas Gannett thomas.gannett at tgannett.net
Wed May 23 22:21:28 UTC 2018


Dear CESG Members,

 

Conditions for approval of CESG-P-2018-03-003 Approval to release CCSDS 508.1-R-1, Re-entry Data Message (Red Book, Issue 1) for CCSDS Agency review have been disposed to the satisfaction of the AD(s) who voted to approve with conditions. The Secretariat will now proceed with CMC polling to authorize release for Agency review.

 

 

Logothete, L.L.C.

thomas.gannett at tgannett.net

+1 443 472 0805

 

From: Burleigh, Scott C (312B) [mailto:scott.c.burleigh at jpl.nasa.gov] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2018 12:09 AM
To: Berry, David S (3920)
Cc: Thomas Gannett
Subject: RE: Response to Conditions on the CESG Poll for Re-Entry Data Message Agency Review

 

Hi, David.  This looks fine to me.  My condition is satisfied.

 

Scott

 

From: Berry, David S (3920) 
Sent: Monday, May 7, 2018 11:37 AM
To: Burleigh, Scott C (312B) <Scott.C.Burleigh at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: Thomas Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>
Subject: Response to Conditions on the CESG Poll for Re-Entry Data Message Agency Review

 

 

Scott:

 

Attached are materials prepared by the Re-Entry Data Message (RDM) Lead Editor Alexandru Mancas in response to the conditions placed during the recent CESG Poll requesting Agency Review.

 

Could you review the document RDMannexGupdated.pdf to see if it satisfies the conditions? There are a number of other attachments related (comparisons, and full documents), but this one is the file that captures the section of the document upon which the conditions were placed.

 

If you could please copy Tom Gannett on your response (positive or negative), he would appreciate it.

 

Thanks!

David

 

 

From: "Alexandru.Mancas at esa.int" <Alexandru.Mancas at esa.int>
Date: Monday, May 7, 2018 at 5:58 AM
To: "Berry, David S (3920)" <david.s.berry at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: "Tim.Flohrer at esa.int" <Tim.Flohrer at esa.int>
Subject: Re: CESG Poll Quorum

 

Dear David, 

Please find attached the updated RDM Red Book version 0.1. I made the required changes to annex G and incremented the version from 0 to 0.1 (I did not change anything else on purpose, though it seems Word did some Word things to the ToC). 

There should be 6 files attached: 

*	the updated Red Book, in both doc and pdf 
*	the updated Red Book compared to the original version, in both doc and pdf 
*	the updated Annex G (pdf) 
*	the updated Annex G compared to the original (pdf) 
*	 

Please let me know if this would meed the conditions imposed to proceed with the Agency Review. 

Best regards 
Alexandru Mancas 



ir. Alexandru Mancas
Space Surveillance and Tracking System Engineer
Space Situational Awareness Programme/GMV 

ESOC 
Robert-Bosch-Str. 5 
64293 Darmstadt 
Germany
 <mailto:alexandru.mancas at esa.int> alexandru.mancas at esa.int |  <http://sst.ssa.esa.int/> http://sst.ssa.esa.int 
T +49 (0)6151 902 205 



From:        "Berry, David S (3920)" <david.s.berry at jpl.nasa.gov> 
To:        "Alexandru.Mancas at esa.int" <Alexandru.Mancas at esa.int> 
Cc:        Thomas Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>, "Burleigh, Scott C (312B)" <scott.c.burleigh at jpl.nasa.gov> 
Date:        04/05/2018 01:01 
Subject:        Re: CESG Poll Quorum 

  _____  

 

 

Alexandru:

 

The other day I met with Scott Burleigh, the AD who posed the conditions on the RDM, and he had the following suggestions to resolve the conditions raised with respect to Annex G:

 

1. Instead of "data block" use the term "data category". "Data Categories" would thus be: Atmospheric Re-Entry, Ground Impact and Burn-up, State Vector, State Covariance, Spacecraft Parameters, and Orbit Determination Parameters

 

2. Instead of using the word "Required" in the header row, use the word "Relevant". Using "required" and "recommended" in the body of the table is fine. Since there are a few table rows that do not currently have "required" and "recommended" in the row, you will have to add these words as applicable.

 

3. Re-phrase the explanatory paragraph to use the above language, and indicate that the terms "required" and "recommended" relate to the context set by the data category.

 

Let me know if this isn't clear. I've attached the draft Red Book as prepared by Tom Gannett, the CCSDS Editor, so you can make the changes to Annex G. I strongly recommend that you resist the temptation to make changes in other parts of the document, i.e., restrict to Annex G.

 

Regards,

David

 

 

From: "Alexandru.Mancas at esa.int" <Alexandru.Mancas at esa.int>
Date: Monday, April 30, 2018 at 12:25 AM
To: "Berry, David S (3920)" <david.s.berry at jpl.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: FW: CESG Poll Quorum

 

Dear David, 

To address the condition I propose to do the following: 

1. Replace the text in annex G; from: 

This annex is intended to provide a helpful guide (table G-1) in determining which optional metadata keywords (from table 3-2) and data blocks (from table 3-3) should be present for each block in the data section (from table 3-3). 

with: 

The provision of optional keywords is at the discretion of the data provider. This annex is intended to provide a helpful guide (table G-1) in associating optional metadata keywords (from table 3-2) and data blocks (from table 3-3). There are only a few required metadata and data keywords, but many more that are applicable to one or more data blocks. Some data blocks can also provide extra information for other blocks. Additionally, there are some keywords that are only applicable in certain restricted situations. Finally, there are some metadata keywords that are completely optional. This summary may assist the user in constructing an RDM that properly describes a specific re-entry event. 

2. replace the word 'required' in table G-1 with 'recommended' and the word 'recommended' with 'situationally recommended'. 
 
Please let me know if we need to set up a telecon with the AD for further discussion. It would need to be at 9 or 10 am PDT, as there is a 9 hour time difference to CEST. 

Best regards 
Alexandru Mancas 

ir. Alexandru Mancas
Space Surveillance and Tracking System Engineer
Space Situational Awareness Programme/GMV 

ESOC 
Robert-Bosch-Str. 5 
64293 Darmstadt 
Germany
 <mailto:alexandru.mancas at esa.int> alexandru.mancas at esa.int |  <http://sst.ssa.esa.int/> http://sst.ssa.esa.int 
T +49 (0)6151 902 205 



From:        "Berry, David S (3920)" < <mailto:david.s.berry at jpl.nasa.gov> david.s.berry at jpl.nasa.gov> 
To:        " <mailto:Alexandru.Mancas at esa.int> Alexandru.Mancas at esa.int" < <mailto:Alexandru.Mancas at esa.int> Alexandru.Mancas at esa.int> 
Date:        26/04/2018 17:50 
Subject:        FW: CESG Poll Quorum 

  _____  





Alexandru:  Just after I hit enter on my response to you, I got this response from Tom Gannett... I've asked him for the draft Red Book so we can address the condition. We should also decide on the approach to the condition so I can show our proposed response to the Area Director that levied it... He's also at JPL, so I can go to his office to discuss.

David



On 4/26/18, 8:45 AM, "Thomas Gannett" < <mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net> thomas.gannett at tgannett.net> wrote:

  Hi, David:
  
  The rule is, votes from a majority of Areas are required for quorum, so four Areas have to weigh in. Abstentions count as a vote, and I believe you are OK in terms of quorum. But I see there is a condition on Re-entry Data Message.
  
  Tom
  
  
  Logothete, L.L.C.
   <mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net> thomas.gannett at tgannett.net
  +1 443 472 0805
  
  -----Original Message-----
  From: Berry, David S (3920) [ <mailto:david.s.berry at jpl.nasa.gov> mailto:david.s.berry at jpl.nasa.gov] 
  Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2018 11:14 AM
  To: Thomas Gannett
  Subject: CESG Poll Quorum
  
  Hi Tom: 
  
  Just curious what is the number of votes required in a CESG poll to move forward? I have 2 CESG polls in progress for Agency Reviews, and of course we'd like to make progress... but the polls have been long already (due to CCSDS Meetings in the middle of them), and now extended, and not many votes have been received from CESG members.
  
  How does an abstention affect the answer to the previous question (I have one in each poll)?
  
  Thanks,
  David
  
  
  


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 ( <mailto:dpo at esa.int> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20180523/8a533f32/attachment.html>


More information about the CESG mailing list