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

Sat Apr 18 16:54:39 UTC 2020

Dear Peter,
        here below my remaining comments.

 313.0-Y-3      SLS-16: 
You state: << We will amend the text in the Org & Proc, Sec 5.2.7 (or 
other more appropriate Sec) to say something to the effect of "Some 
cross-area SIGs, with responsibility for certain long-term technical 
topics, such as certain sets of registries, may be titled "Expert Groups" 
and persist for years.  Cross area Expert Groups will require approval of 
the affected ADs."
Amended text to be provided. >>
I think you are the best to propose the amendment to Org&Proc.

 313.2-Y-2      SLS-09
It is clear that the (red) suggestion proposed on 2 April is fine with me 
as I know very well the author :o)
I think is is up to the other CESGers to comment.

313.2-Y-2       EJB 4
For
3.2.14 Every Working Group that defines or modifies a registry shall use 
that registry during any interoperability testing that is required prior 
to publication of the standard. 
my cent is the folllowing
3.2.14 Every Working Group that defines or modifies a registry shall 
perform proper interoperability testing (possibly between more agencies) 
of the affected registries and report results in the Interoperability Test 
Report that is required for publication of the standard. 

Best regards

Gian Paolo

From:   "Shames, Peter M\(US 312B\) via CESG" <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
To:     "Barkley, Erik J (US 3970)" <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc:     "CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec" 
<cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Date:   16-04-20 18:35
Subject:        Re: [CESG] Revisions to the three SANA documents as the 
result of the CESG review and PID resolution
Sent by:        "CESG" <cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>

[attachment "CESG Poll unresolved issues 313x0,1,2 & 315x1 16Apr20.xlsx" 
deleted by Gian Paolo Calzolari/esoc/ESA] 

Hi Erik, Gippo, et al,

While reviewing the PID resolutions that Erik accepted, and marking them 
green to signify that they are, in fact, accepted, I realized that one of 
them requires further work.  Please review row 42: 313.2-Y-2, EJB 4, "How 
to use registries during testing".  The current "resolution" asks for 
specific feedback "Please provide a succinct statement of what you think 
this would look like.  The intent was to adhere to the CCSDS A02.1-Y-4 
language in sec 6.2.6, approval criteria and interoperability testing."

I'd like for Erik and the other CESG members to propose some language for 
this interoperability testing requirement that you would find acceptable. 
The current text in this section, 3.2.14, says this:
3.2.14 Every Working Group that defines or modifies a registry shall use 
that registry during any interoperability testing that is required prior 
to publication of the standard. 
NOTE – This does not necessarily require exercise of any programmatic 
interfaces as part of interoperability testing, but it does require the 
registry to exist, be populated with relevant data, and be used for its 
intended purpose during testing. 
Once this is resolved the only remaining open issues are those that Gippo 
raised.  Gippo, can we ask you to review these proposed PID resolutions 
and either accept them or propose alternative wordings?

Thanks, 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

Peter,

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,
-Erik
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

 _______________________________________________
CESG mailing list
CESG at mailman.ccsds.org
https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cesg

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/20200418/7589fd94/attachment-0001.htm>