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

Thu Sep 6 16:49:06 UTC 2018

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>
To:     "Mario.Merri at esa.int" <Mario.Merri at esa.int>, "Smith, Danford S. 
(GSFC-5800)" <danford.s.smith at nasa.gov>
Cc:     "brigitte.behal at cnes.fr" <brigitte.behal at cnes.fr>, "Barkley, Erik 
J (3970)" <Erik.J.Barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>, "Afarin, James (HQ-CG000)" 
<james.afarin at nasa.gov>, Sam Cooper <sam at brightascension.com>, CESG 
<cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>, "Michael.McKay at esa.int" 
<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>
Date: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 12:32 AM
To: Dan Smith <danford.s.smith at nasa.gov>
Cc: Brigitte Behal <brigitte.behal at cnes.fr>, Erik Barkley 
<Erik.J.Barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>, James Afarin <james.afarin at nasa.gov>, Peter 
Shames <Peter.M.Shames at jpl.nasa.gov>, Sam Cooper 
<sam at brightascension.com>, CESG <cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>, Michael 
McKay <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> 
To:        "Mario.Merri at esa.int" <Mario.Merri at esa.int> 
Cc:        "brigitte.behal at cnes.fr" <brigitte.behal at cnes.fr>, Sam Cooper 
<sam at brightascension.com>, "Afarin, James (HQ-CG000)" 
<james.afarin at nasa.gov>, "Shames, Peter M (JPL-312B)[Jet Propulsion 
Laboratory]" <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>, "Barkley, Erik J 
(JPL-3970)[Jet Propulsion Laboratory]" <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>, 
"Smith, Danford S. (GSFC-5800)" <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

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
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2018 3:56 AM
To: 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).
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/20180906/c39fb451/attachment.html>