[CESG] Changing scope of actual edits to a document: [EXTERNAL] Fw: [Cesg-all] Results of CMC Polls
Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int
Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int
Fri Sep 11 13:55:11 UTC 2020
Dear Peter and All,
I would like to conclude on this topic
The discussion has been triggered by the following comment from Jaxa to
one CMC Poll.
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?
Given that this comment quoted - and commented - the CCSDS A02.1-Y-4 ,
it is CESG responsibility to provide the answer.
The following text summaries the thread of discussion we have had. If
there are no further comments, I will forward the answer to the Jaxa CMC
representative.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) CESG agreed to introduce the following clarification into CCSDS
A02.1-Y-4 (but changes will be introduced when the next release of the
document is due)
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.
2) Answer to the question " Will the necessity be identified in the course
of the review process?"
The change of scope of actual edits to one document with respect to the
approved project in CWE is controlled as follows:
1) WG to get to consensus on the actual changes
2) in case the changes are not trivial, the WG shall modify the approved
CWE Project. Notably, this applies if changes are such to require a change
to the project's resources
3) request approval by CMC.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\(US 312B\) via CESG" <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
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: 01/09/2020 18:39
Subject: Re: [CESG] Changing scope of actual edits to a document:
[EXTERNAL] Fw: [Cesg-all] Results of CMC Polls
Sent by: "CESG" <cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>
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
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
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
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/20200911/1ba2bdcc/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the CESG
mailing list