[CESG] Changing scope of actual edits to a document: [EXTERNAL] Fw: [Cesg-all] Results of CMC Polls
Shames, Peter M (US 312B)
peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov
Tue Sep 1 16:38:59 UTC 2020
Hi Gippo,
Ah. NOW I think I understand your point of view. It does seem to be the case that the CWE Project structure, which many (including myself) view as a "hoop" we need to jump through in order to be allowed to do the work we want to do (or need to do) to largely be an annoying formality. It was proposed at one point as a part of strategic planning, a way of documenting where we collectively wanted to go. In that it was to replace the Strategic Plan, a document based version with the same intent. At least that is my understanding of how we got to where we are.
I do think that we hold that Project definition as being intended to clearly state what we intend to do and what the subject matter is. We also intend this Project definition to clearly state the scope, intended outcome, and schedule.
Having said that, I disagree that "once you have started a CWE Project you can do whatever you like on a given book". If I were to agree with that statement it would mean that it would be Ok for an SLS WG to develop a network protocol, or a spacecraft on-board one. I think that would totally violate what is intended and that at the very first public meeting where such a shift were reported that it would result in howls of pain (Ok, maybe THAT is a little extreme), or at least a strong push back from the offended CCSDS WG and Area, and likely support from other Areas as well. We do have these agreed Areas, WG, and "boundaries" and one of the assigned responsibilities of the CESG is "maintaining orderly progress" (secs 2.3.2.3.g, I, j).
I can think of two recent examples of how this works:
1. SOIS Wireless WG: Created a project to adopt WiFi and 4G/LTE specs (thus creating a Utilization Profile) for communications in and around orbiting stations and habitats. Primarily for human use, in suits, and for use on rovers (etc) local to the habitat. This could easily have "strayed" into Prox-1 territory, but they have been asked to constrain their geo-spatial "working envelope" to something like 10 Km, where we expect Prox-1 to be used over 100's to tens of 1000's of Km. They have also been asked to work with SANA for registries and with RF&M for spectrum allocation management.
2. SEA SAWG: Asked by the CMC to create a "CCSDS Architecture". Recognized that the bottom layers of the stack were already documented in the CCSDS 901.1-M-1, SCCS-ARD (and ADD) that cover SLS, SIS, CSS, and SEA, so focused only on SOIS and MOIMS. Intended to create a Magenta Book, but recognized that a lot of the materials that had been published were only Green Books, so only a Green Book is being published.
These two examples both differ from the original proposed Project, but they also are within the spirit of what was proposed and stayed within the "bounds" that were agreed. I think that is fine. I suspect that the rest of the CESG feels likewise. If not, now might be a good time to have that discussion.
So, are we really in agreement?
Best regards, Peter
From: Gian Paolo Calzolari <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>
Date: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 at 1:04 AM
To: Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>, Tom Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>
Subject: Re: Changing scope of actual edits to a document: [CESG] [EXTERNAL] Fw: [Cesg-all] Results of CMC Polls
Peter,
listening to many people in CCSDS they simply consider CWE Project a waste of time.
If it would appear that once you have started a CWE Project you can do whatever you like on a given book, such opinion would be reinforced IMO.
Therefore nice to hear we are in agreement.
Regards
Gian Paolo
From: "Shames, Peter M (US 312B)" <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
To: "Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int" <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>
Cc: "Tom Gannett" <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>, "CCSDS CESG --" <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Date: 31-08-20 18:04
Subject: Re: Changing scope of actual edits to a document: [CESG] [EXTERNAL] Fw: [Cesg-all] Results of CMC Polls
________________________________
Hi Gippo,
I think we are in agreement. Thanks.
What I am not sure about is what you mean by " ignoring this … would undermine the - already low - confidence of WGs on CWE ". Just what do you mean by this? What "low confidence"? In what aspect?
Thanks, Peter
From: Gian Paolo Calzolari <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>
Date: Monday, August 31, 2020 at 2:24 AM
To: Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: Tom Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>, CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: Changing scope of actual edits to a document: [CESG] [EXTERNAL] Fw: [Cesg-all] Results of CMC Polls
Dear Peter,
only one "general" comment to your remark about changing "scope of actual edits to a document" with respect to the approved CWE Project.
We all know that this indeed can happen.
However I think that we all agree that such change of scope (unless we talk about "peanuts") shall be properly controlled with
1) proper WG consensus
2) modification of the approved CWE Project (when the change is not trivial)
3) re approval by CMC (e.g. for changes of resources)
Of course only step #1 is always required while steps #2 and #3 depend of the nature of the added changes.
IMO ignoring this (and I think this is not the case for you) would undermine the - already low - confidence of WGs on CWE.
However it looks as we do not need such extreme details in Org&Proc.
Best regards
Gian Paolo
From: "Shames, Peter M\(US 312B\) via CESG" <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
To: "Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int" <Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int>
Cc: "Tom Gannett" <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>, "CESG -- CCSDS-Engineering SteeringGroup\(cesg at mailman.ccsds.org\)\(cesg at mailman.ccsds.org\)" <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Date: 29-08-20 00:12
Subject: Re: [CESG] [EXTERNAL] Fw: [Cesg-all] Results of CMC Polls
Sent by: "CESG" <cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>
________________________________
Dear Margherita,
I agree that some sort of modest changes to text could make some similarly modest changes in clarity. I doubt that it is worth cresting a corrigendum for just this change, but would agree that these kinds of edits could be added to a list of similar items and handled all at once. I think Tom Gannett has such a list, so I have added him to this email reply.
I would also comment that it is possible that the scope of actual edits to a document, as opposed to planned edits, can change once the process has started. It's sort of like a bathroom remodeling project where you start with just wanting to paint the walls, and maybe changing the mirror, and you wind up replacing all of the cabinets and tiles too. Or starting to fix what you think is a minor leak in the plumbing and discovering that there is now mold growing and you need to rip out the walls to fix it.
Maybe those analogies do not work for you, but these things can happen, so I think some latitude and flexibility is required. But I do not believe that we need to say all of that in the Org & Proc.
Best regards, Peter
From: "Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int" <Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int>
Date: Friday, August 28, 2020 at 8:34 AM
To: Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Fw: [Cesg-all] Results of CMC Polls
Dear Peter,
The comment form Jaxa states:
Section 6.1.4.4 (Page 6-5) states "…Blue Books are required to be prototyped before final approval and publication…" Resources of Prototype 1 and Prototype 2 are "Not required" for this 5-year review, however, there is no statement in the CCSDS A02.1-Y-4 whether the prototype tests are required for the New Projects of the 5-year review. Will the necessity be identified in the course of the review process?
I agree that the matter is already covered in CCSDS YB, Org & Proc, however, may be a simple change to the text would avoid misunderstanding in the future. For instance (in red):
6.1.4.4 As a result of this difference in prescriptive content between Blue and Magenta books, Blue Books are required to be prototyped before final approval and publication, but Magenta Books are not required to be prototyped. This applies also to updates of Blue Books, if/when new features are introduced.
6.2.7.2.1.1 Revisions of published normative documents shall follow the procedures in 6.2.2 and 6.2.6.
Concerning the question from Jaxa “….Will the necessity be identified in the course of the review process?”, I think the answer is that the necessity of prototyping can only be identified at the time the new project gets established, in that the relevant resources must be identified – and requested - via project approval. Therefore, this necessity cannot be identified during the review process.
Kind regards,
Margherita
--------------------------------------------------------------
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>
Cc: "CESG -- CCSDS-Engineering SteeringGroup(cesg at mailman.ccsds.org)(cesg at mailman.ccsds.org)" <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Date: 27/08/2020 02:02
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Fw: [Cesg-all] Results of CMC Polls
________________________________
Dear Margherita,
This is already covered in the CCSDS YB, org & Proc, under the subject of "Periodic Review":
6.2.7 PERIODIC REVIEW
6.2.7.1 General
CCSDS documents shall undergo periodic review within the Area no later than five years after issue and every five years subsequently. Periodic review shall result in reconfirmation, revision, or retirement to CCSDS historical status.
If the document is just reconfirmed then there is no need for a new protoyping effort. If the document is revised in any significant way, especially is there are any changes to protocols, behavior, PDUs, data formats, signaling, then that falls under the "Revisions" clause:
6.2.7.2 Changes to Documents
6.2.7.2.1 Revisions of Normative Documents
6.2.7.2.1.1 Revisions of published normative documents shall follow the procedures in 6.2.2.
6.2.7.2.1.2 The color designation for draft revisions of normative documents shall be “Pink” (rather than “Red”).
6.2.7.2.1.3 In cases where only limited discrete changes are proposed to a published normative document, only the pages containing substantive changes (“Pink Sheets”) may be released for review.
The procedures in sec 6.2.2 are those for normal, normative, document processing, which include prototyping and generation of a test report. I believe that this is all clearly enough stated and that no changes to CCSDS A02.1-Y-4 are needed.
Do you concur?
Thanks, Peter
From: "Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int" <Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int>
Date: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 at 7:16 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] Fw: [Cesg-all] Results of CMC Polls
Dear Peter,
the attached notification contains two comments from Jaxa, where they query about Prototype activities for Blue Books under 5-years review : the point they make is that CCSDS A02.1-Y-4 does not explicitly mandate prototype testing for books under 5-years review. Is this need to be established e.g. during the review process itself ?
Can you please take a look at the comment ? In case some text needs to be introduced in CCSDS A02.1-Y-4, can you propose something to CESG ?
Thank you, kind regards,
Margherita
--------------------------------------------------------------
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
----- Forwarded by Margherita di Giulio/esoc/ESA on 26/08/2020 15:56 -----
From: "Stafford Laura (BTAS)" <Laura.Stafford at btas.com>
To: "Blackwood, Michael D via CMC" <CMC at mailman.ccsds.org>
Cc: "Blackwood, Michael D via CESG-All" <cesg-all at mailman.ccsds.org>
Date: 25/08/2020 18:19
Subject: [Cesg-all] Results of CMC Polls
Sent by: "CESG-All" <cesg-all-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>
________________________________
CMC E-Poll Identifier: CMC-P-2020-07-002
Approval of New Projects in the 5.04 Space Link Protocols WG
Results of CMC poll beginning 7 July 2020 and ending 21 July 2020:
Adopt: 8 (100%) (CNES, CNSA, CSA, DLR, ESA, INPE, JAXA, NASA)
Adopt Provisionally: 0 (0%)
Reject: 0 (0%)
Reject with Comments: 0 (0%)
Results are based on responses from 8 out of 11 members (72.72%).
No response was received from the following Agencies:
ASI
RFSA
UKSA
Comments from JAXA:
This comment(/inquiry) is not for this 5-year review Project, but the CCSDS A02.1-Y-4.
Section 6.1.4.4 (Page 6-5) states "…Blue Books are required to be prototyped before final approval and publication…" Resources of Prototype 1 and Prototype 2 are "Not required" for this 5-year review, however, there is no statement in the CCSDS A02.1-Y-4 whether the prototype tests are required for the New Projects of the 5-year review. Will the necessity be identified in the course of the review process?
Secretariat Interpretation of Results: Adopted
Resulting CMC Resolution: CMC-R-2020-08-008
Inferred Secretariat Action: Approve Project - Done & Working Group Chair address Comments from JAXA.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CMC E-Poll Identifier: CMC-P-2020-07-003
Approval of New Project in the 5.09 Space Data Link Security WG
Results of CMC poll beginning 7 July 2020 and ending 21 July 2020:
Adopt: 8 (100%) (CNES, CNSA, CSA, DLR, ESA, INPE, JAXA, NASA)
Adopt Provisionally: 0 (0%)
Reject: 0 (0%)
Reject with Comments: 0 (0%)
Results are based on responses from 8 out of 11 members (72.72%).
No response was received from the following Agencies:
ASI
RFSA
UKSA
Comments from JAXA:
This comment(/inquiry) is not for this 5-year review Project, but the CCSDS A02.1-Y-4.
Section 6.1.4.4 (Page 6-5) states "…Blue Books are required to be prototyped before final approval and publication…" Resources of Prototype 1 and Prototype 2 are "Not required" for this 5-year review, however, there is no statement in the CCSDS A02.1-Y-4 whether the prototype tests are required for the New Projects of the 5-year review. Will the necessity be identified in the course of the review process?
Secretariat Interpretation of Results: Adopted
Resulting CMC Resolution: CMC-R-2020-08-009
Inferred Secretariat Action: Approve Project - Done & Working Group Chair address Comments from JAXA.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CMC E-Poll Identifier: CMC-P-2020-07-004
CESG Escalation to CMC about Unresolved CESG Poll
Results of CMC poll beginning 15 July 2020 and ending 29 July 2020:
Adopt: 8 (100%) (CNES, CNSA, CSA, DLR, ESA, INPE, JAXA, NASA, UKSA)
Adopt Provisionally: 0 (0%)
Reject: 0 (0%)
Reject with Comments: 0 (0%)
Results are based on responses from 9 out of 11 members (81.81%).
No response was received from the following Agencies:
ASI
RFSA
Comments from ESA:
ESA agree to release the book for Agency Review
Secretariat Interpretation of Results: Adopted
Resulting CMC Resolution: CMC-R-2020-08-010
Inferred Secretariat Action: The Poll conditions raised by the ADs shall be removed, and the book CCSDS 131.3-P-1.1, shall go ahead to Agency Review.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CMC E-Poll Identifier: CMC-P-2020-06-005
CMC-P-2020-06-005 Charter Modification for the Multispectral Hyperspectral Data Compression (SLS-MHDC) Working Group
Results of CMC poll beginning 25 June 2020 and ending 9 July 2020:
Adopt: 8 (100%) (ASI, CNES, CNSA, CSA, DLR, ESA, INPE, JAXA,)
Adopt Provisionally: 0 (0%)
Reject: 0 (0%)
Reject with Comments: 0 (0%)
Results are based on responses from 8 out of 11 members (72.72%).
No response was received from the following Agencies:
NASA
RFSA
UKSA
Secretariat Interpretation of Results: Adopted
Resulting CMC Resolution: CMC-R-2020-08-011
Inferred Secretariat Action: Approve Charter Once WG Chair Makes Edits - Done
________________________________
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The contents of this e-mail message may be privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected against disclosure or dissemination. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please delete all copies from your computer system.
_______________________________________________
CESG-All mailing list
CESG-All at mailman.ccsds.org
https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cesg-all<https://urldefense.us/v3/__https:/mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cesg-all__;!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!dJeBXBZ_FfE3ud8YCTVQsvPU4TDjAkQ03Dxpm3VVEALUfHZawp50yxAbjvmP0N8i_19O8T4f$>
This message is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. It may contain proprietary information and/or
protected content. Any unauthorised disclosure, use, retention or dissemination is prohibited. If you have received
this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately. ESA applies appropriate organisational measures to protect
personal data, in case of data privacy queries, please contact the ESA Data Protection Officer (dpo at esa.int).
This message is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. It may contain proprietary information and/or
protected content. Any unauthorised disclosure, use, retention or dissemination is prohibited. If you have received
this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately. ESA applies appropriate organisational measures to protect
personal data, in case of data privacy queries, please contact the ESA Data Protection Officer (dpo at esa.int)._______________________________________________
CESG mailing list
CESG at mailman.ccsds.org
https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cesg<https://urldefense.us/v3/__https:/mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cesg__;!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!dIdICCfFnuXVyRPYGj7g_saMrbAzyqz-G1R_GEbSIo6w3UZIDFCFndxDCWnS4lzJlOxFpczz$>
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).
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/20200901/d9b0d32d/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the CESG
mailing list