[CESG] [EXTERNAL] Re: SOIS-APP responses to CCSDS 876x0-B-0 CESG Poll Conditions Feb-16-2019b

[Mario.Merri at esa.int]

Dear Peter,

these recommendations have been made and they are sensible recommendations 
relevant to the document under poll. I am just asking to the SOIS what 
they are going to do about them in this context. It is not clear to me why 
do you have to answer on their behalf.

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>, "Wilmot, Jonathan J. 
(GSFC-5820)" <jonathan.j.wilmot at nasa.gov>
Cc:     "cesg at mailman.ccsds.org" <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>, 
"thomas.gannett at tgannett.net" <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>
Date:   28/03/2019 23:39
Subject:        Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: SOIS-APP responses to CCSDS 876x0-B-0 
CESG Poll Conditions Feb-16-2019b



Dear Mario,
 
I?m mostly, but not entirely, and observer here, but I have to admit to 
being rather puzzled by what you are asking for.  The 876.0-B-0 document 
that is being reviewed is a stand-alone, normative, document that should 
be reviewed on it?s own merits.  And this is a SOIS document, it really 
has nothing to do with MOIMS unless you want to make use of its features.
 
What really puzzles me greatly is why you would include this quoted text 
from the draft SOIS Yellow Book that is also being held up in review?  In 
that report, which is separate from this Blue Book, and as a report is not 
normative on anything, those quoted bits of text are introduced by this:
 
Therefore it can be deduced that attempting to create a common core 
specification, which the two usages would then differently extend, would 
be unlikely to be a worthwhile exercise.
Instead, lessons learned from this analysis should be fed back into the 
corresponding specification development processes, in order to improve 
areas where either is lacking in capability or excessively complicated. 
For EDS, these could include
 
So the report basically says that there may be little merit in trying to 
create a common specification between these two separate bodies of work. 
It then suggests things that could be done, separately, to improve the 
SOIS EDS, and later, to improve the MOIMS MAL.   These are just 
suggestions, in a non-normative report. 

I really fail to understand why they would even be brought into this 
discussion of this SOIS Blue Book, to which they bear no direct 
relationship. 
 
If MOIMS does see benefit in using the set of terms that SOIS has 
carefully defined I think that is great.  There may even be future benefit 
to MOIMS in using the SOIS EDS to describe deployment architectures, but 
that too is future work.  I do think it would be useful to have separate 
discussions of just how those could occur.  But it does not seem 
appropriate to hold up the approval of this existing document for some 
speculative future activity that no one has discussed adequately, let 
alone agreed to.
 
Can you agree to allow this poll to proceed and to separately take up the 
subject of some joint effort to explore this subject of re-use of EDS and 
DoT terms?
 
Thanks, Peter
 
 
 
From: Mario Merri <Mario.Merri at esa.int>
Date: Thursday, March 28, 2019 at 11:18 AM
To: "Wilmot, Jonathan J. (GSFC-5820)" <jonathan.j.wilmot at nasa.gov>
Cc: CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>, 
Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>, Tom Gannett 
<thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: SOIS-APP responses to CCSDS 876x0-B-0 CESG Poll 
Conditions Feb-16-2019b
 
Dear Wilmot, 

The use of standard SOIS DoT entries for MOIMS standards is reasonable, 
the two WGs should therefore commit to making sure this happens. However, 
the current draft YB also has recommendations on EDS that have nothing to 
do with MOIMS, specifically: 

Instead, lessons learned from this analysis should be fed back into the 
corresponding specification development processes, in order to improve 
areas where either is lacking in capability or excessively complicated. 
For EDS, these could include: 
?    replacing the term ?namespace? with ?area?, as that avoids confusion 
with XML namespaces; 
?    replacing the term ?interface instance? with ?port?, for better 
compatibility with Universal Modelling Language (UML) 2.0, and avoiding 
the potential confusion between ?interface definition? and ?interface 
instance?; 
?    replacing the ?mode? SYNC/ASYNC flag on parameters and commands with 
a Boolean value ?oneway?, by analogy with Common Object Request Broker 
Architecture (CORBA); this avoids overloading the term ?mode?, also used 
for arguments. 

Have these been taken into account? 

Thanks, 

__Mario 



From:        "Wilmot, Jonathan J. (GSFC-5820)" 
<jonathan.j.wilmot at nasa.gov> 
To:        "Mario.Merri at esa.int" <Mario.Merri at esa.int>, "Shames, Peter M 
(JPL-312B)[Jet Propulsion Laboratory]" <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov> 
Cc:        "thomas.gannett at tgannett.net" <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>, 
"cesg at mailman.ccsds.org" <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org> 
Date:        25/03/2019 21:06 
Subject:        SOIS-APP responses to CCSDS 876x0-B-0 CESG Poll Conditions 
Feb-16-2019b 

 
Dear Mario, Peter
 
   Please find attached the SOIS-APP WG responses to the CESG Poll 
conditions placed on publication of CCSDS 876.0-B-1, Spacecraft Onboard 
Interface Services?XML Specification for Electronic Data Sheets (Blue 
Book, Issue 1). Please respond with your agreement or comments. 
 
 
    Kind regards,
 
       Jonathan
 
Jonathan Wilmot
NASA/GSFC
CCSDS SOIS Area Director[attachment "CCSDS 876x0-B-0 CESG Conditions 
Feb-16-2019b.xlsx" deleted by Mario Merri/esoc/ESA] 
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/20190401/47e2f25d/attachment.html>