[CESG] [EXTERNAL] 131.3 unresolved Poll: SLS position paper

Shames, Peter M (US 312B) peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov
Wed Apr 15 19:58:49 UTC 2020

Dear Margherita,

I think we may have arrived at the same conclusion, but by different paths, and probably for different reasons.  You said "I do not see another option than escalating the decision to the CMC, given that at this point in time this is no longer a technical discussion, and that there is no consensus within the CESG".  Actually, I do not think that we have done the work within the CESG to analyze and discuss these re-stated positions, but it may well be that at this point no amount of discussion within the CESG will resolve anything.

Of concern to me is that you seem to be making the assertion that all of these issues should only be discussed within the working groups.  From my point of view these issues have been discussed there, and the result of those discussions can be seen in the rather convoluted set of standards that allow only certain things and explicitly disallow others.  Many of these disallowed, or even removed, options are technically feasible, and are, in fact, flying very successfully on various missions today.  As a result we have missed (or discarded) the opportunity to create as consistent a set of leading standards as we can.

The reason why this issue was raised in a CESG Poll is because the CESG has been explicitly given the role of ensuring the consistency of standards across WG and of anticipating stakeholder needs.  This is clearly stated within the CCSDS Organization and Procedures document, CCSDS A02.1-Y-4.  To quote: CESG Operating Principles
d)  Consistency. An important job of the CESG is to watch over the output of all of the WGs to help prevent CCSDS specifications that are at odds with each other. This is why ADs and DADs are required to review the drafts coming out of Areas other than their own as part of the consensus process leading up to their adoption into the program of work. The quality of the CCSDS Recommended Standards comes both from the review that they get in the WGs and the review that the WG products get from the CESG.
e)  Anticipation. The CESG must be able to look ahead and anticipate new standards that stakeholders will most likely require, and begin prospective planning for their development so that there is sufficient time to complete them once a hard requirement emerges. This implies working with technology and experimental communities to vector research resources into the standardization process.
This responsibility is, in fact, restated in sec as well.  In my opinion trying to push this significant issue back into a WG is to shirk that CESG responsibility.

Regardless, it appears that you feel escalating this to the CMC is the only viable path forward.  At this point I must agree.

Best regards, Peter

From: "Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int" <Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int>
Date: Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 5:25 AM
To: Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: Bernie Edwards <bernard.l.edwards at nasa.gov>, CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>, Dennis K Lee <dennis.k.lee at jpl.nasa.gov>, Gilles Moury <Gilles.Moury at cnes.fr>, Greg Kazz <greg.j.kazz at jpl.nasa.gov>, Jon Hamkins <jon.hamkins at jpl.nasa.gov>, Kenneth Andrews <kenneth.s.andrews at jpl.nasa.gov>, "Massimo.Bertinelli at esa.int" <Massimo.Bertinelli at esa.int>, Victor Sank <victor.j.sank at nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [CESG] 131.3 unresolved Poll: SLS position paper

Dear Peter,
I take note of the NASA Position Paper that you delivered with your e-mail on 3rd April.

I remark that the right forum for an Agency's position paper is within the affected  WG(s) and Area. Only after the relevant technical discussion in those forums has taken place , the CESG may/will intervene, if needed.
The CESG is , in fact,  supposed to sort out technical  issues that may arise between Areas ( or between WGs).  It is not supposed to decide upon a roadmap for technical documentation, when that  roadmap – which entails the way forward, the concept papers(s), the new projects, etc. - needs to be  produced as the result of an Agency's position paper.
It is only within the WGs that all (interested) Agencies are represented and can fairly support the discussion.

I notice that the NASA's Position Paper implies a re-assessment of the  approach for  the (set of ) coding-related document(s), whilst the existing approach did get WG’s consensus in previous CCSDS sessions, notably Berlin and Mountain View, if I remember well.
Accordingly, I request that whichever re-assessment is supposed to be done now , it shall be done first in the appropriate forum (=WG/Area).
Again, the CESG will then discuss the outcome of the WGs’ re-assessment, if needed.

Concerning the unresolved Poll for the DBV-S2 standard, which has been produced according to the existing roadmap, I do not see another option than escalating the decision to the CMC, given that at this point in time this is no longer a technical discussion, and that there is no consensus within the CESG

Kind regards.
Margherita di Giulio
Ground Station Systems Division
Backend Software Section (OPS-GSB)

European Space Agency ESA/ESOC
Robert-Bosch-Str. 5
D-64293 Darmstadt - Germany
Tel: +49-6151-902779
e-mail: Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int

From:        "Shames, Peter M (US 312B)" <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
To:        "Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int" <Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int>, "CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec" <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Cc:        "Massimo.Bertinelli at esa.int" <Massimo.Bertinelli at esa.int>, "Moury Gilles" <Gilles.Moury at cnes.fr>, "Hamkins, Jon (US 3300)" <jon.hamkins at jpl.nasa.gov>, "Andrews, Kenneth S (US 332B)" <kenneth.s.andrews at jpl.nasa.gov>, "Victor Sank" <victor.j.sank at nasa.gov>, "Kazz, Greg J (US 312B)" <greg.j.kazz at jpl.nasa.gov>, "Bernie Edwards" <bernard.l.edwards at nasa.gov>, "Lee, Dennis K (US 332G)" <dennis.k.lee at jpl.nasa.gov>
Date:        03/04/2020 22:14
Subject:        Re: [EXTERNAL] [CESG] 131.3 unresolved Poll: SLS position paper

Dear Margherita and CESG members,

During yesterday's CESG WebEx I said that I would provide a revision of the original NASA position paper on how to resolve this issue.  That is attached.  It is a refinement of the position that we presented before, and it specifically tries to address the technical issues that Gilles and others have raised.

You will see that this is endorsed by the relevant set of NASA participants in the RFM, C&S, SLP, and Opt WGs.  They all had a role in refining and reviewing these materials.

Lastly, you will find in the backup an analysis showing the difference in outcome between the approach proposed here and what would result from the present trajectory as documented in Gilles note.  We all believe that what was, in effect, implied by the changes to the DBV-S2 standard really represent what should be an architecturally significant shift in how the SLS standards, as a group, may be applied to future missions.

We will be missing a significant opportunity if we do not take the time now to adopt this as a uniform position across all of the affected SLS standards.

While we all must respect the crucial role of the CCSDS Working Groups in developing and validating technically sound standards, we must also remember that the CESG has been assigned the role for ensuring technical quality, coherence, and consistency across the standards and across the areas. CESG Responsibilities
The CESG is specifically responsible for the following:
a)  maintaining and upholding the overall technical quality and consistency of the evolving set of CCSDS Recommended Standards and Practices;

And that required CESG review is the context within which these issues were identified.  This is not just a Working Group issue.

Best regards, Peter

From: CESG <cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> on behalf of Gilles Moury <Gilles.Moury at cnes.fr>
Date: Saturday, March 28, 2020 at 11:25 AM
To: "Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int" <Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int>
Cc: "Massimo.Bertinelli at esa.int" <Massimo.Bertinelli at esa.int>, CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [CESG] 131.3 unresolved Poll: SLS position paper

Dear Margherita,

I hope you and your family are able to stay safe & healthy.

As a response to action item taken during March 10 CESG telecon, please find attached SLS position paper regarding 131.3 unresolved poll.

Best regards,


[cid:image001.jpg at 01D61325.99FC1300]

Gilles MOURY

Senior Adviser On-Board Architecture & Avionics

Architecture, Validation & Integration Department

18 avenue Edouard Belin 31401 Toulouse Cedex 9

[cid:image002.jpg at 01D61325.99FC1300] +33 (0)5 61 27 37 90 / [cid:image003.jpg at 01D61325.99FC1300] +33 (0)6 83 56 04 85

[cid:image004.jpg at 01D61325.99FC1300] gilles.moury at cnes.fr

[cid:image005.jpg at 01D61325.99FC1300] cnes.fr<http://cnes.fr/>

[cid:image006.jpg at 01D61325.99FC1300]<https://www.facebook.com/CNESFrance/>  [cid:image007.jpg at 01D61325.99FC1300] <https://www.instagram.com/cnes_france/>   [cid:image008.jpg at 01D61325.99FC1300] <https://twitter.com/cnes>

 [attachment "NASA refined ALACAMAD approach 3Apr20.pptx" deleted by Margherita di Giulio/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/20200415/dbe64787/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3399 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20200415/dbe64787/attachment-0008.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 747 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20200415/dbe64787/attachment-0009.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 744 bytes
Desc: image003.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20200415/dbe64787/attachment-0010.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 742 bytes
Desc: image004.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20200415/dbe64787/attachment-0011.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 744 bytes
Desc: image005.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20200415/dbe64787/attachment-0012.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image006.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 787 bytes
Desc: image006.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20200415/dbe64787/attachment-0013.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image007.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 797 bytes
Desc: image007.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20200415/dbe64787/attachment-0014.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image008.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 794 bytes
Desc: image008.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20200415/dbe64787/attachment-0015.jpg>

More information about the CESG mailing list