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

Sat Apr 18 18:43:20 UTC 2020

Hi Gippo,

Thanks for the feedback.  See attached spreadsheet, dated 16Apr20, tab "Summary of Final Edits", starting at row 64, for the proposed "Expert Group Policy" changes to the CCSDS Org & Proc, CCSDS A02x1y4.

The other changes seem ok to me, but I think the additio0n of the clause "(possibly between more agencies) " is really rather superfluous since all of our statements on interoperability testing already make that clear.

Thanks, Peter

From: Gian Paolo Calzolari <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>
Date: Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 9:54 AM
To: Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [CESG] Revisions to the three SANA documents as the result of the CESG review and PID resolution

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/20200418/5608d415/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CESG Poll unresolved issues 313x0,1,2 & 315x1 16Apr20.xlsx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet
Size: 66403 bytes
Desc: CESG Poll unresolved issues 313x0,1,2 & 315x1 16Apr20.xlsx
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20200418/5608d415/attachment-0001.xlsx>