[CESG] Revisions to the three SANA documents as the result of the CESG review and PID resolution

Shames, Peter M (US 312B) peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov
Thu Apr 16 00:08:48 UTC 2020

Thanks Erik.

Gippo, over to you.

Take care, Peter

From: Erik Barkley <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 4:51 PM
To: Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: RE: Revisions to the three SANA documents as the result of the CESG review and PID resolution


With respect to the conditions/PIDs I raised on these documents I am okay moving ahead as indicated in the spreadsheet attached in your original email.

Best regards,
From: CESG <cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> On Behalf Of Shames, Peter M (US 312B) via CESG
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2020 14:51
To: CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [CESG] Revisions to the three SANA documents as the result of the CESG review and PID resolution
Importance: High

Dear CESG members,

As I think you are all aware, the recent CESG review of the three draft SANA document produced a set of PIDs.  We had one CESG telecon a week ago that resolved all of the PIDs for the SANA Procedures (CCSDS 313.0-Y).  These resolutions affected some of the PIDs on the other two docs as well, but we do not yet have complete closure.  We are waiting for agreement, or follow-up, from Erik Barkley and Gippo Calzolari.  We expect to resolve this via email.

During the CESG discussion a concern was raised that the workflow for registry approval and promotion was not as agreed (see row 17).  After analysis it became evident that there are some dis-connects between the way that the this work flow is described in the SANA Procedures (CCSDS 313.0-Y) and in the Registry Management Policy (RMP, CCSDS 313.1-Y) versus how they are described in the Procedures for SANA Registry Specification (PSRS, CCSDS 313.2-Y).  As Mario pointed out, maintaining consistency does take diligence.

After analyzing these three documents it is pretty clear to me that the workflow captured in the PSRS is disjoint from how it is described in the SANA Procedures and the RMP.  That was not the case in the original documents, as submitted for processing.  I have prepared a set of edits to the PSRS that rectifies this and this is now being reviewed by the SSG.  There are some changes, but they are not extensive, and they have been reviewed with the SANA Operator.

Meanwhile, I have attached the latest edits to the PID tracking spreadsheet here.  With Mario's concurrence we now just have the EJB and GPC proposed resolutions (column J) to reach closure on.  I ask you to review the tab labelled "Summary of Final Edits".  This includes the following:

1)      All of the items that we reviewed last week that were not initially accepted and needed discussion, and the agreed dispositions from last week marked in green like this

2)      All of the items that were not initially accepted, and that we did not get to review last week, with proposed dispositions are in black text in Col J, along with some added notes

3)      For completeness I added in all of the items from the original set of PIDs that were initially accepted and require document edits.  These are highlighted in green in Col C and the already agreed dispositions are in Col H, also marked in green.

This was done so that the complete set of changes for all documents is in one place.  The only exceptions were those where more extensive edits were needed, as in the PSRS issues just mentioned (row 17 & 34) and the changes to the CCSDS Org & Proc, A02x1y4, which have not yet been processed (row 26).  These are highlighted in yellow.

For anyone who is interested, I have the files representing the original PID submissions, with each of the items broken out and identified as to how they are dispositioned (or proposed) as captured in this master spreadsheet.  Ask me if you want to see this for traceability.

In order to move ahead with this I would like to ask Eric and Gippo to review their PIDs and indicate if there are any that they disagree with.  Can I ask that this be done by next Tuesday, 14 April?

Thanks, Peter

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20200416/56d860fe/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the CESG mailing list