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

[Shames, Peter M (312B)]

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).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20190328/fafd2c28/attachment-0001.html>