[CESG] [EXTERNAL] Keep the term “function” / was: Re: CESG-P-2020-12-006 Approval to publish CCSDS 922.3-B-1, Cross Support Transfer Service—Forward Frame Service ( Blue Book, Issue 1)

Tue Mar 16 18:46:05 UTC 2021

Hi Gippo,

Yes.  Thanks for that added clarity.

I do think that it is functions associated with a layer.  Some “layers” in the ISO BRM context, actually contain multiple functions and I think it is important to distinguish both functions and layers.

That said, I really want to remove that term “strata” because I think that is just confusing.  That said, there are still layers, in the ISO BRM context, and I think it valuable to identify which layer, or layers, we are talking about because that is a really valuable “touch stone” for people.

Thanks, Peter

From: Gian Paolo Calzolari <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>
Date: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 at 11:23 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: [EXTERNAL] Keep the term “function” / was: Re: [CESG] CESG-P-2020-12-006 Approval to publish CCSDS 922.3-B-1, Cross Support Transfer Service—Forward Frame Service ( Blue Book, Issue 1)

Peter,
        only one remark about your statement.
>> In the context of the FF-CSTS I would caution against removing the term “function”.

I think there is a misunderstanding to be solved as sooner as better.

I never proposed to remove the term “function” (or at least I never intended to do so).
I meant that all the part using stratus/strata actually talk about functions (*).
Therefore it is better to remove the term stratus/strata and just talk about functions.
As far as I could see, in FF-CSTS this is feasible with easy adaptation of the  affected text.

For the rest I will comment later, but I considered important to remove this misunderstanding (and sorry if my words originated it).

Best regards

Gippo

(*) I find often more appropriate talking about functions in a layer instead of dividing a layer in more sublayers.

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:        "cesg at mailman.ccsds.org" <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>, "Thomas Gannett" <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>
Date:        16-03-21 18:55
Subject:        Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [CESG]  CESG-P-2020-12-006 Approval to publish CCSDS 922.3-B-1, Cross Support Transfer Service—Forward Frame Service (  Blue Book, Issue 1)
________________________________

Hi Gippo,

It seems we may be converging, which is all to the good.  The idea of working with SLS, and RFM WG in particular, on the clear definition of “aperture” would seem to be an entirely sensible thing to do.  This is especially the case since we will now have both “RF Apertures” and “Optical Apertures”, but have not (yet) formally defined the term “aperture” even though we use it in a few documents.  Aperture is not the only such term that we more or less take for granted that everyone knows, and so have not bothered to define it.  The terms “asset” and “space packet” are also on that list.  We all have some clean-up to do.

I still like the concept of treating either RF Apertures or Optical Apertures as being the lowest sub-layer of the Physical layer.  I’d suggest that we review the use of those terms in the up-coming meeting and try to reach closure on them.  As I noted earlier, the association of apertures with the bottom-most sub-layer of the Physical Layer seems entirely appropriate and consistent with existing RF&M (and other) usage, as well as being completely aligned with the ISO BRM description of Layer 1, the Physical Layer.

In the context of the FF-CSTS I would caution against removing the term “function”.  The CSS Area has adopted a set of formalisms called the Functional Resource Model (FRM) to represent the functions that exist in our systems.  This term is also in wide use in systems architecture descriptions and is formalized in the RASDS and the docs that derive from that, the SCCS-ARD and ASL.   Other standards regularly use it as well.  I cannot see any good reason for abandoning that term, even if it does occur frequently in this doc.

function

The set of actions or activities performed by some object to achieve a goal; the transformation of inputs to outputs that may include the creation, modification, monitoring, or destruction of elements.

[ccsds-311.0-M-1]<https://urldefense.us/v3/__https:/sanaregistry.org/references/70__;!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!ZHd5NRxm-VesP5diT3-Pz1qa0RJbpg7BKq6QzA9yG-8DufWY9f3rkte99Q_m45EakO4nVhMF$>

What would you propose to replace it with?  Or did you have in mind leaving the word out entirely?

Cheers, Peter

From: Gian Paolo Calzolari <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>
Date: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 at 1:07 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: [EXTERNAL] Re: [CESG] CESG-P-2020-12-006 Approval to publish CCSDS 922.3-B-1, Cross Support Transfer Service—Forward Frame Service ( Blue Book, Issue 1)

Peter,
       just to be clear I never asked to revert from layer to stratus.
I simply remark that the straight replacement (e.g. a la WinWord) stratus --> layer does create new issues as e.g. the identification on an Aperture Layer.
Actually I found that the document could live taking away strata and just deleting those parts that indeed refer mostly to functions (that is most likely the best seller term in that document) are likely to solve the issue. This is what I proposed in my comments to John.

Defining sub layers can be an artifact that may look as a solution but as well can create new confusion if "invented" in a document without a real relationship with other documents.
If the envisaged solution is to define an Aperture sub layer and a Modulation sub layer within the Physical Layer, I do recommend consulting the RFM WG on this.

That's all for my European evening

Best regards & stay healthy

Gippo

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:        "cesg at mailman.ccsds.org" <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>, "Thomas Gannett" <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>
Date:        15-03-21 19:31
Subject:        Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [CESG]  CESG-P-2020-12-006 Approval to publish CCSDS 922.3-B-1, Cross Support Transfer Service—Forward Frame Service (  Blue Book, Issue 1)

________________________________

Hi Gippo,

I just got the details of this issue you raised forwarded from John.  I can forward the rather lengthy analysis that I sent back to him, which mostly extracted definitions from the Basic Reference Model (known as the ISO BRM) ISO/IEC 7498-1, the edition republished in 1996.

Here is a short summary of that analysis:

1.        The BRM concerns itself with “terrestrial systems of terminals, computers, and associated  devices for transferring information among them”.

2.        The BRM defines and extensively uses the term “Layer”.

3.        The BRM makes no mention of “strata” nor “stratum”.

4.        Using that term stratum to rename what is already defined as a layer in the ISO BRM is just plain confusing.

5.        The BRM makes no mention of aperture or ground station but the Physical Layer is defined as “The Physical Layer provides the mechanical, electrical, functional and procedural means to activate, maintain, and de-activate physical-connections for bit transmission between data-link-entities. “

6.        This is a perfectly serviceable definition of the functions that an “aperture” provides for either RF or optical communications at the Physical Layer.

7.        We (CCSDS) do describe the roles of ground stations and terminals and apertures, but we do not tend to explicitly define them.  They are used, but not formally defined, in the RF&M 401 document, and in the SCCS-ARD and Nav standards.

8.        The way that we use those terms, Earth Station or Aperture, for either RF or optical comms, is entirely consistent with the ISO BRM definition of “Physical Layer”.

9.        Just as “modulation”, which is not defined in the ISO BRM, is treated as a “sub-layer” of the Physical Layer, I think it entirely appropriate to treat the “aperture” as a sub-layer of the Physical Layer.

So I agree with you. Calling the aperture an “aperture layer” is a mis-statement.  On the other hand, calling it a “sub-layer of the Physical Layer” is entirely appropriate, and this fits both within the ISO BRM and is consistent with the nearly identical definition we have adopted for the modulation sub-layer of the Physical Layer.

Regards, Peter

From: Gian Paolo Calzolari <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>
Date: Friday, March 12, 2021 at 2:35 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: [EXTERNAL] Re: [CESG] CESG-P-2020-12-006 Approval to publish CCSDS 922.3-B-1, Cross Support Transfer Service—Forward Frame Service ( Blue Book, Issue 1)

Peter,
      actually I received the "publication package" from Tom.
Actually your file is named differently from the one in that package, but I am not going to investigate the difference also because I provided some comment to Johh Pietras based on the file I got from Tom.

I provided the comments on a friendly basis making clear to John that (according to rules) there is "no obligation to accept any of them."

My major issue is the straight replacement of strata with layers.
First this introduce an "Aperture Layer" I never heard before and then it also introduces many consistency concerns with other document statements that talk about functions.

The other findings are minor or even just additional information for the book editor.

IMO, resubmitting this big document to CESG would not be according to rules but it would be according to the spirit to  “produce the most useful, clear, and unambiguous standards”

I wish you all a nice week end.

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:        "cesg at mailman.ccsds.org" <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>, "Thomas Gannett" <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>
Date:        11-03-21 22:04
Subject:        Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [CESG]  CESG-P-2020-12-006 Approval to publish CCSDS 922.3-B-1, Cross Support Transfer Service—Forward Frame Service (  Blue Book, Issue 1)

________________________________

Dear Gippo,

Somehow it appears that you are more concerned with “follow the process to the letter” than you are on “produce the most useful, clear, and unambiguous standards”.

I did, by the way, say that I was guilty of missing this issue the first time around:

“the CESG failed to catch it earlier.  I point the finger at myself here, since I had the opportunity to catch the issue earlier”

I also admit to being late with my inputs.  The WG could have taken the “stand on ceremony” and “follow the process to the letter” approach, or just told me “too late”.  Instead they looked at this request, apparently realized that I was correct, and fixed it.

I’m attaching there updates here just so you all get to see what was, in fact, changed.  It’s not intended to be a secret.  Some of the other communications were sent to the CESG and the key one that initiated this is copied below for easy reference.

For my part I am glad that this was resolved in a way that produced a clear, unambiguous, standard that documents just what it is that the IOAG SISG requested.

Best regards, Peter

From: Shames, Peter M (US 312B) [mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov]
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2021 7:49 PM
To: Barkley, Erik J (US 3970); Holger.Dreihahn at esa.int<mailto:Holger.Dreihahn at esa.int>; Tom Gannett
Cc: CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec
Subject: Late input from SEA on the CESG-P-2020-02-006 CSTS FF poll

Dear Erik, Holger, Tom, et al,

Please accept this late input from SEA on this poll.  I took the time to actually review the spec in some detail and it took rather longer than  I expected.  I was hoping that this FF-CSTS spec would meet all of the planned requirements for this forward frame service.  Unless I somehow overlooked some important features that are documented deep in the bowels of this 218 page specification I am afraid that I have to conclude that it has missed the mark.

The “mark” in my understanding, is that this spec was supposed to define the list of features that follows below.  These are drawn from the original SISG Space Internetworking Strategy report that first defined the features of this forward frame service intended to accommodate DTN (and IP) traffic, from the SCCS-ARD/ADD where these features were documented in the context of the rest of the CCSDS protocol stacks and Earth Space Link Terminal (ESLT, otherwise known as a ground station plus its associated control center elements), and the features that already existed in the EF-CLTU Orange Book that was created because there was no other documented service for handling the synchronous AOS frame protocol for forward links.

1.        Ability to provide an “SLE-like” forward link service for synchronous link protocols, initially AOS, but now to include USLP

2.        Provide encoding in the ESLT for this forward link frame stream

3.        Ability to accept input frame streams from more than one user source

4.        Ability to multiplex frame streams from all of the input sources, including some that are not directly from FF-CSTS itself

5.        Ability to keep a synchronous forward link filled, if necessary by inserting fill frames in the ESLT

6.        Ability to integrate the protocol PDUs from DTN, IP, CFDP, or other data sources, from “agents” instantiated in the ESLT, to create frames that encapsulate these PDUs, and to integrate these in the multiplexed frame stream (see items 3 & 4)

As best I can tell this spec fails to accomplish items 5 and 6 at all, and it appears to give only passing acknowledgement to items 2 or 4.  These are mentioned as being features that are needed somewhere in the ESLT, but there is not a section of the document, nor even an informative annex, let alone a normative one, that would suggest what was really intended nor how to accomplish it.  In my judgement this is a significant oversight and renders this document inadequate to the task at hand which was to document how these services were to be provisioned and integrated.

Unfortunately, from my point of view, instead of addressing these absolutely required services the document as presented spends a lot of “real estate” documenting how this new service can be made to handle TC forward asynchronous frames.  Since there is already a perfectly serviceable SLE F-CLTU that provides this service this seems like an unnecessary effort.  The only conceivable rationale that occurs to me is that this TC forward service is very much like that needed for USLP variable length frame forward service.  That said, I really have to question whether it would have been better to just modify SLE F-CLTU to accommodate USLP variable length frames instead of weighing this document down with this added baggage.

It appears that in this document we got far fewer of the essential features than were required and, at the same time, more features than were really useful.

While I recognize that a large amount of work has been expended to get this document to this point, in my estimation it falls far short of what is really required.  It does not provide all of the features called for in the IOAG SISG, nor that were documented in the SCCS-ARD Magenta Book, nor does it appear to provide all of the features in the F-CLTU Orange Book which has for years been supporting major operational missions.  It was intended to provide services that could meet all of these requirements, and it seems to have failed to do so.

Accordingly, I cannot support publishing this document in its current form.

With respect, Peter Shames

From: Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: Thursday, March 4, 2021 at 1:34 PM
To: John Pietras <john.pietras at gst.com>
Cc: Erik Barkley <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>, "Holger.Dreihahn at esa.int" <Holger.Dreihahn at esa.int>, Wolfgang Hell <wo_._he at t-online.de>, Tim Pham <timothy.t.pham at jpl.nasa.gov>, "Neutze, Robert L. (MSFC-EO60)[CSC - HOSC]" <robert.l.neutze at nasa.gov>, "Clement.Leclerc at cnes.fr" <Clement.Leclerc at cnes.fr>, "Liao, Jason C (US 333F)" <jason.c.liao at jpl.nasa.gov>, Tom Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Response to CSEG Review comments on the FF-CSTS candidate Blue Book

Dear John,

Always a wonderful opening to a letter, right?  After looking over, in some detail, the proposed resolutions for the issues that I raised I am pleased to be able to state that you have addressed my concerns.  I believe that the changes have made the various distinctions among the different flavors of service provision clearer, and, more importantly from my PoV, have made the visible the assumptions that were  “baked in”, but not expressed, in service production.  This now provided visibility to the multiplexing functions that are so essential to the proper functioning of this service as a key part of the future CCSDS ESLT “plumbing”.

I consider my PID to poll CESG-P-2020-12-006 to be resolved and agree to having the revised document published in its modified form.

I will note that some last minute massaging by Tom Gannett will likely be required, there were at least a couple of spelling errors noted in passing.

Thanks, Peter

From: John Pietras <john.pietras at gst.com>
Date: Sunday, February 14, 2021 at 1:31 PM
To: Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: Erik Barkley <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>, "Holger.Dreihahn at esa.int" <Holger.Dreihahn at esa.int>, Wolfgang Hell <wo_._he at t-online.de>, Tim Pham <timothy.t.pham at jpl.nasa.gov>, "Neutze, Robert L. (MSFC-EO60)[CSC - HOSC]" <robert.l.neutze at nasa.gov>, "Clement.Leclerc at cnes.fr" <Clement.Leclerc at cnes.fr>, "Liao, Jason C (US 333F)" <jason.c.liao at jpl.nasa.gov>, Tom Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Response to CSEG Review comments on the FF-CSTS candidate Blue Book

Peter, it’s taken a few weeks, but the CSTSWG has completed our response to your conditions and comments on the CSEG Review copy of the FF-CSTS candidate Blue Book. Erik has also reviewed and concurs with the response.

Attached are (a) an updated draft FF-CSTS book, containing the changes to the book that have resulted in response to your conditions/comments, and (b) a document that contains point-by-point responses to the comments that you made in your email of 16 January to Erik, Holger, and Tom and in your marked-up copy of the CESG Approval version of the book.

Hopefully, between the changes that have been made and the explanations provided for questions that you had, your conditions for approval have been satisfied. Please contact me if you have any further questions or comments.

Tom G. – I’m copying you on this to keep you in the loop on where this book sits. Once the CSTSWG and Peter have come to agreement regarding removal of his conditions, I’ll send to you the final updated copy (if there any more changes), the final response/resolution document, and the original artwork for the updated figures so that you can prepare the CMC approval version.

Best regards,

John

From: Gian Paolo Calzolari <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>
Date: Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 3:26 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: [EXTERNAL] Re: [CESG] CESG-P-2020-12-006 Approval to publish CCSDS 922.3-B-1, Cross Support Transfer Service—Forward Frame Service ( Blue Book, Issue 1)

Peter,
     the updates have been visible to me only when -  following the announcement of conditions met - I asked them to Tom.
I do not know whether anybody else in CESG (apart from CSS AD and DAD, I would guess) could see them.

As I read your mail I perceive that everybody else (i.e. WG, CSS, other CESGers) is guilty but you.
However, never mind.

Clearly the rules only require to close condition and go ahead with next poll without more review from CESG.
On the other hand the rules also require to vote during poll (and not after polls) and - as CESG agreed - to provide formal PIDs (this was discussed in order to give real visibility on conditions).

I am reporting what I see as an issue with "heavy" changes after "heavy" Conditions.
I would be curios about knowing who in CESG has been able to fully understand the requested changes and eventually to track the implemented changes.
IMO, the mechanism of CESG conditions was thought to address changes with "reasonable/limited scope".
IMO, when changes exceed a "reasonable/limited scope" the document should return to CESG Poll (or even to Agency Review in some cases).

If nobody else can see this issue except me, then... peace and love.

Best 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>, "cesg at mailman.ccsds.org" <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Cc:        "Thomas Gannett" <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>
Date:        11-03-21 00:10
Subject:        Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [CESG]  CESG-P-2020-12-006 Approval to publish CCSDS 922.3-B-1, Cross Support Transfer Service—Forward Frame Service (  Blue Book, Issue 1)

________________________________

Hi Gippo,

I’m guessing that these necessary updates were “visible” to you, and the rest of the CESG, because you were able to state the magnitude of the required changes.  Perhaps you are asking that the CESG be given an opportunity to re-review the changes in response to the PID.  I cannot tell because you did not address that issue.  But the CESG did get to see the changes.

In point of fact, the revisions do not make the document “heavily, nor completely different”  from the document that was reviewed.  What the changes do accomplish is to align the description of the service with the functionality requested in the IOAG SISG report from years ago, which you, yourself, were a co-author of.   What was required were not changes to the FF-CSTS service provisioning itself, but were clarifications to the service production that were not otherwise documented anywhere aside from the IOAG SISG report and the SCCS-ARD.  In the absence of these clarifications the functionality of the service, both provision (which is the core focus of the service exposed to users) and production (which are the functions that must be executed to deliver full functionality of frame merging and DTN bundle agent and CFDP file agent integration) would be inadequately documented.  It would have been left to the users to guess what production functionality was required or supported.  A massive source of ambiguity for a service that is to be the heart of DTN integration and support in the future ESLTs.

What is wrong with this approach is that the WG failed to incorporate the description of these critical production functions in the first place, and that the CESG failed to catch it earlier.  I point the finger at myself here, since I had the opportunity to catch the issue earlier and did, in fact, point this concern out a couple of years ago.  But then, I am only one of the six Area Directors.  It appears that no one else, including you, who were one of the authors of the IOAG SISG report that defined this new service, managed to catch this issue until now.

So, just what exactly is the problem here?

Peter

From: CESG <cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> on behalf of Gian Paolo Calzolari <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>
Date: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 7:35 AM
To: CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Cc: Tom Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [CESG] CESG-P-2020-12-006 Approval to publish CCSDS 922.3-B-1, Cross Support Transfer Service—Forward Frame Service ( Blue Book, Issue 1)

Dear All,
    I see that there is a 24 pages document only to explain which changes have been applied (to a 242 pages document) because of the (late) conditions.

The document that will go to CMC - in a way invisible to CESGers -  is now heavily (if not completely) different from the one that was evaluated by CESG.
Frankly speaking I think there is something very wrong in this approach.

Best regards

Gian Paolo

From:        "Thomas Gannett" <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>
To:        cesg at mailman.ccsds.org
Date:        07-03-21 16:48
Subject:        Re: [CESG]  CESG-P-2020-12-006 Approval to publish CCSDS 922.3-B-1, Cross Support Transfer Service—Forward Frame Service (  Blue Book, Issue 1)
Sent by:        "CESG" <cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>

________________________________

Dear CESG Members,

Conditions for approval of CCSDS 922.3-B-1, Cross
Support Transfer Service—Forward Frame Service
(Blue Book, Issue 1) have been disposed to the
satisfaction of the AD(s) who voted to approve
with conditions. The Secretariat will now proceed
with CMC polling to authorize publication.

Thomas Gannett
thomas.gannett at tgannett.net
+1 443 472 0805 [attachment "Re EXTERNAL Response to CSEG Review comments on the FF-CSTS candidate Blue Book.txt" deleted by Gian Paolo Calzolari/esoc/ESA] _______________________________________________
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!a0qSHP9p17UYLyqsbzP1_BZYMyQz3GAR0v2LqDlVHS-OzHnN8FyD9Bk09_eVYN-oeFQYTiX1$>

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