[CESG] [Secretariat] FW: [Moims-sc] CCSDS-OMG Liaison: Satellite Command & Control Message Specification (C2MS)

Oliver, Brian (HQ-CG000)[Arctic Slope Technical Services, Inc.] brian.oliver at nasa.gov
Tue Oct 23 04:37:28 UTC 2018


All,

I have added Dan Smith as a non-member of the CESG list.  This means he isn’t a member, but his messages will not be held for moderation if he sends to the list.

We are still reviewing why his e-mail in September was not moderated properly.  We believe it might have been discarded by accident.

Thanks,

Brian Oliver
CCSDS IT Tech Support

On Oct 22, 2018, at 11:11 AM, Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int<mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int> wrote:

Peter,
        As Dan is not a member of cesg at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg at mailman.ccsds.org> his mail either remained to be moderated or was automatically discarded.....

My cent.....

Gippo



From:        "Shames, Peter M (312B)" <Peter.M.Shames at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:Peter.M.Shames at jpl.nasa.gov>>
To:        CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>>
Date:        22-10-18 16:57
Subject:        [CESG] FW: [Moims-sc] CCSDS-OMG Liaison: Satellite Command & Control Message Specification (C2MS)
Sent by:        "CESG" <cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>>
________________________________


Dear CESG colleagues,



You were emailed this on 6 Sept, but it appears to not have been delivered.  I am re-sending it for your information.



Regards, Peter





From: Dan Smith <danford.s.smith at nasa.gov<mailto:danford.s.smith at nasa.gov>>
Date: Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 10:48 AM
To: Mario Merri <Mario.Merri at esa.int<mailto:Mario.Merri at esa.int>>, Peter Shames <Peter.M.Shames at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:Peter.M.Shames at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Cc: Brigitte Behal <brigitte.behal at cnes.fr<mailto:brigitte.behal at cnes.fr>>, Erik Barkley <Erik.J.Barkley at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:Erik.J.Barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>>, James Afarin <james.afarin at nasa.gov<mailto:james.afarin at nasa.gov>>, Michael McKay <Michael.McKay at esa.int<mailto:Michael.McKay at esa.int>>, Sam Cooper <sam at brightascension.com<mailto:sam at brightascension.com>>, CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>>
Subject: RE: [Moims-sc] CCSDS-OMG Liaison: Satellite Command & Control Message Specification (C2MS)



Mario,



You note that you did not receive any comments on the TN.  That is not a fair statement.



I sent you my general comment and also let you know that I had prepared a full response for discussion at the CESG meeting.  I gave my full response to the NASA CESG members and I never got a request from you for a copy.  Instead of holding it for the CESG meeting, I have attached my comments to this email.



Clearly, there are more unresolved issues that just the two you mention below.



Dan



=========================
Dan Smith
NASA/GSFC
Code 580
Bldg 23, Room E443
8800 Greenbelt Road
Greenbelt, MD  20771
301-286-2230
Dan.Smith at nasa.gov<mailto:Dan.Smith at nasa.gov>

Believe the science.  There are no “alternative facts”.



From: Mario.Merri at esa.int<mailto:Mario.Merri at esa.int> [mailto:Mario.Merri at esa.int]
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2018 12:49 PM
To: Shames, Peter M (JPL-312B)[Jet Propulsion Laboratory] <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Cc: brigitte.behal at cnes.fr<mailto:brigitte.behal at cnes.fr>; Smith, Danford S. (GSFC-5800) <danford.s.smith at nasa.gov<mailto:danford.s.smith at nasa.gov>>; Barkley, Erik J (JPL-3970)[Jet Propulsion Laboratory] <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>>; Afarin, James (HQ-CG000) <james.afarin at nasa.gov<mailto:james.afarin at nasa.gov>>; Michael.McKay at esa.int<mailto:Michael.McKay at esa.int>; Sam Cooper <sam at brightascension.com<mailto:sam at brightascension.com>>; cesg at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: Re: [Moims-sc] CCSDS-OMG Liaison: Satellite Command & Control Message Specification (C2MS)



Dear Peter,

following yesterday CESG webex and for the sake of clarity, I would like to report on the conclusions of the discussion on the email below that was caused by some misunderstanding of yours:

1. It was confirmed that I received an action from the CESG to request the production of the TN. This is documented in the approved CESG MoM of Gaithersburg.

2. I have NOT distributed the TN to the OMG, but only to the SM&C WG and to the CESG requesting comments by 31Aug (no comment received). Margherita forwarded the TN to the CMC for information.

This clarifies the matter. What is still unresolved are:

1. the non-consensus within the SM&C WG

2. the fact that OMG has ignored the head up for potential overlapping.

The agreed way forward will be reported in the CESG Webex MoM.

Regards,

__Mario



From:        "Shames, Peter M (312B)" <Peter.M.Shames at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:Peter.M.Shames at jpl.nasa.gov>>
To:        "Mario.Merri at esa.int<mailto:Mario.Merri at esa.int>" <Mario.Merri at esa.int<mailto:Mario.Merri at esa.int>>, "Smith, Danford S. (GSFC-5800)" <danford.s.smith at nasa.gov<mailto:danford.s.smith at nasa.gov>>
Cc:        "brigitte.behal at cnes.fr<mailto:brigitte.behal at cnes.fr>" <brigitte.behal at cnes.fr<mailto:brigitte.behal at cnes.fr>>, "Barkley, Erik J (3970)" <Erik.J.Barkley at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:Erik.J.Barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>>, "Afarin, James (HQ-CG000)" <james.afarin at nasa.gov<mailto:james.afarin at nasa.gov>>, Sam Cooper <sam at brightascension.com<mailto:sam at brightascension.com>>, CESG <cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>>, "Michael.McKay at esa.int<mailto:Michael.McKay at esa.int>" <Michael.McKay at esa.int<mailto:Michael.McKay at esa.int>>
Date:        04/09/2018 22:02
Subject:        Re: [Moims-sc] CCSDS-OMG Liaison: Satellite Command & Control Message Specification (C2MS)
________________________________

Dear Mario,



It's strange, but different people seem to have quite different memories of what happened during that CESG meeting.  My notes, written during the meeting, say this:



Mario raises issue of “overlap” between the SM&C MAL and the new OMG C2MS (GMSEC), suggests an analysis paper is needed.  Discussed in CESG, but no explicit request for resolution or vote in support.  Mario just says “I’m doing this."


So, according to my notes, and my own recollections, there was no "request by the CESG" that you do this.  Nor was there even a voice vote or raising of the hands to indicate that the CESG was in agreement.  You did not ask for this, you just announced that you were doing it.  This is not behavior that is consistent with how we normally carry out our business, and I really must object to you trying to re-write history to suggest otherwise.



The fact that you subsequently went ahead and sent this to the OMG with a statement that it was a CCSDS position is also behavior that is out of the norm.  There was no CESG nor CCSDS agreement to take this position, this was your fabrication.  If that biased position paper had been submitted to OMG as an agency, or even multi-agency, position that would be fine.  But describing it as a CCDS position, and proposing that we break our liaison relationship with OMG because you did not like their handling of this, is also outside the norm of how we do business.



So in this case I would say that many of the issues having to do with faults in "nominally agreed processes between CCSDS and OMG for identifying and openly discussing overlapping standards" must lie at your doorstep and cannot be blamed on the OMG.  Nor is it accurate to state that this was a result of a CESG request or concensus.  It was not.



Regards, Peter





From: Mario Merri <Mario.Merri at esa.int<mailto:Mario.Merri at esa.int>>
Date: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 12:32 AM
To: Dan Smith <danford.s.smith at nasa.gov<mailto:danford.s.smith at nasa.gov>>
Cc: Brigitte Behal <brigitte.behal at cnes.fr<mailto:brigitte.behal at cnes.fr>>, Erik Barkley <Erik.J.Barkley at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:Erik.J.Barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>>, James Afarin <james.afarin at nasa.gov<mailto:james.afarin at nasa.gov>>, Peter Shames <Peter.M.Shames at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:Peter.M.Shames at jpl.nasa.gov>>, Sam Cooper <sam at brightascension.com<mailto:sam at brightascension.com>>, CESG <cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>>, Michael McKay <Michael.McKay at esa.int<mailto:Michael.McKay at esa.int>>
Subject: RE: [Moims-sc] CCSDS-OMG Liaison: Satellite Command & Control Message Specification (C2MS)



Dear Dan,

I recall that this technical note had been requested by the CESG at the last meeting in Gaithersburg after my presentation of the report prepared by the SM&C WG that indicated that 3 agencies believed that, after the WG discussion that took place at the last technical meeting, there is a substantial overlapping between work of the WG and the C2MS proposal submission to OMG. This is clearly an indication of non-consensus in the WG which needs to be explicitly raised to the CESG for resolution. As you correctly pointed out, any agency can decide to use whatever system they prefer, but here we are discussing standards and in this occasion the nominally agreed processes between CCSDS and OMG for identifying and openly discussing overlapping standards have not worked.

Regards,

__Mario



From:        "Smith, Danford S. (GSFC-5800)" <danford.s.smith at nasa.gov<mailto:danford.s.smith at nasa.gov>>
To:        "Mario.Merri at esa.int<mailto:Mario.Merri at esa.int>" <Mario.Merri at esa.int<mailto:Mario.Merri at esa.int>>
Cc:        "brigitte.behal at cnes.fr<mailto:brigitte.behal at cnes.fr>" <brigitte.behal at cnes.fr<mailto:brigitte.behal at cnes.fr>>, Sam Cooper <sam at brightascension.com<mailto:sam at brightascension.com>>, "Afarin, James (HQ-CG000)" <james.afarin at nasa.gov<mailto:james.afarin at nasa.gov>>, "Shames, Peter M (JPL-312B)[Jet Propulsion Laboratory]" <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>>, "Barkley, Erik J (JPL-3970)[Jet Propulsion Laboratory]" <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>>, "Smith, Danford S. (GSFC-5800)" <danford.s.smith at nasa.gov<mailto:danford.s.smith at nasa.gov>>
Date:        28/08/2018 14:29
Subject:        RE: [Moims-sc] CCSDS-OMG Liaison: Satellite Command & Control Message        Specification (C2MS)

________________________________




Mario,



I think it is important that every space agency ground system group stay up to date on what is going on in their industry, so I am glad to see that CNES and DLR have compared MO and C2MS.  Other than a courtesy between agencies, I don’t see why the report needs to be shared within agencies and clearly, there is no reason we should give it to the OMG.   Each agency can make its own determination of the merits of different approaches and the validity of claims made in different reports and their own studies.  Although I disagree with how the report was written, its characterization of capabilities and limitations of different systems, and the overall tone, it is not my place to critique work performed outside of the CCSDS WG that I chair unless it is becoming part of a CCSDS position or will be delivered on behalf of CCSDS – neither of which should occur in this case.  If CNES or DLR or ESA wanted correct or clarifying information on C2MS or on GMSEC, they could have contacted either the OMG or NASA, and neither was done.  It was not clear that the whitepaper was making any recommendations regarding the OMG and it is clearly outside of the OMG policies for submitting comments in a timely manner, so I suggest that the paper be distributed between agencies at the discretion of the authors and then the action (if there was one) can be closed.


I have submitted a more technical and process-oriented response to the NASA CESG members to support discussions on the topic at the next CESG meeting.

Dan


=========================
Dan Smith
NASA/GSFC
Code 580
Bldg 23, Room E443
8800 Greenbelt Road
Greenbelt, MD  20771
301-286-2230
Dan.Smith at nasa.gov<mailto:Dan.Smith at nasa.gov>

Believe the science.  There are no “alternative facts”.

From: MOIMS-SC [mailto:moims-sc-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] On Behalf Of Mario.Merri at esa.int<mailto:Mario.Merri at esa.int>
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2018 3:56 AM
To: moims-sc at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:moims-sc at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: [Moims-sc] CCSDS-OMG Liaison: Satellite Command & Control Message Specification (C2MS)

Dear SM&C WG,

As per CESG Action Item from the Gaithersburg meeting, please find enclosed the Technical Note describing the overlap between the CCSDS MO Services and the OMG (proposed) C2MS. The TN has been produced by the active members of the SM&C WG (except for NASA) under DLR leadership and it is fully supported by CNES and ESA. The TN has been distributed to the CESG. Since it relates to the SM&C WG, we would like to share it also with the WG. Please provide any comment you may have before 31Aug18.

Best regards,

Brigitte & Mario

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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:dpo at esa.int>).[attachment "MO Overlap Comments DSMITH.docx" deleted by Gian Paolo Calzolari/esoc/ESA]

_______________________________________________
CESG mailing list
CESG at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:CESG at mailman.ccsds.org>
https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cesg



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<mailto:dpo at esa.int>).


_______________________________________________
CESG mailing list
CESG at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:CESG at mailman.ccsds.org>
https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cesg
_______________________________________________
Secretariat mailing list
Secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org
https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/secretariat

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20181023/91e9dbcc/attachment.html>


More information about the CESG mailing list