[CESG] CESG-P-2021-12-002 Approval to publish CCSDS 902.2-B-1, Cross Support Service Management—Communications Planning Information Format (Blue Book, Issue 1)

[CCSDS Secretariat]

Dear CESG Members,

Conditions for approval of CCSDS 902.2-B-1, Cross 
Support Service Management—Communications 
Planning Information Format (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.
-------------- next part --------------
From:	Colin.Haddow at esa.int
Sent:	Tuesday, February 01, 2022 12:05 PM
To:	Tom Gannett (thomas.gannett at tgannett.net)
Cc:	erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov
Subject:	Fw: [EXTERNAL] Re: CESG-P-2021-12-002 Approval to publish CCSDS 
902.2-B-1, Cross   Support Service Management?Communications 
Planning   Information Format (Blue Book, Issue 1)

Hi Tom,  
                 I've agreed the changes needed to satisfy Tomasos conditions (see below). If you can send 
me the latest Word version of the red book I'll get the updates done.  
 
Thanks.  
 
Cheers for now,  
 
Colin  
 
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Dr. Colin R. Haddow, 
HSO-GI, European Space Agency, 
European Space Operations Centre, 
Robert-Bosch-Str 5, 
64293 Darmstadt, 
Germany. 
 
Phone; +49 6151 90 2896 
Fax;      +49 6151 90 3010 
E-Mail;  colin.haddow at esa.int 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 
----- Forwarded by Colin Haddow/esoc/ESA on 01/02/2022 18:01 -----  
 
From:        <Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de>  
To:        <Colin.Haddow at esa.int>  
Cc:        <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>  
Date:        01/02/2022 17:41  
Subject:        RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: CESG-P-2021-12-002 Approval to publish CCSDS 902.2-B-1, Cross   Support 
Service Management—Communications Planning   Information Format (Blue Book, Issue 1) 
 

Hi Colin,
 
Just checked your points and I agree with them all. Also the point of the “shall” I see now makes sense 
according to your rationale. So as far as I’m concerned, you have the green light ??
 
Tomaso
 
From: Colin.Haddow at esa.int <Colin.Haddow at esa.int>  
Sent: Donnerstag, 27. Januar 2022 10:32 
To: Cola, Tomaso de <Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de> 
Cc: Barkley, Erik J (US 3970) <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov> 
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: CESG-P-2021-12-002 Approval to publish CCSDS 902.2-B-1, Cross Support 
Service Management—Communications Planning Information Format (Blue Book, Issue 1)
 
Hi Tomaso,  
                        thanks for your comments, you picked up a couple of things that had got overlooked 
during the review process, please find my detailed responses below; 
 
1.        References [3] and [6] are indeed not referenced in the document (hangovers from the evolution of 
the document) and should therefore be removed.  
2.        References [4] and [5] have now been issued (happened after the CPIF started the review process 
and I forgot to update them) and should read; 
*	[4] Cross Support Service Management—Common Data Entities. Issue 1. 
Recommendation for Space Data System Practices (Magenta Book), CCSDS 902.12-M-
1. Washington, D.C.: CCSDS, February 2021. 
*	[5] Abstract Event Definition. Issue 1. Recommendation for Space Data System Practices 
(Magenta Book), CCSDS 902.13-M-1. Washington, D.C.: CCSDS, February 2021.
3.        The semantics of should and shall, I would argue that "shall" is correct in this context as, whilst the 
paramters are optional, if they are used thay must be as defined in the relevant tables, however if you feel 
strongly about it we could change it to "should" for the classes defined in 3.3.1.12-3.3.1.17. Let me know 
your preference. 
4.         
4.         
Cheers for now,  
 
Colin  
 
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Dr. Colin R. Haddow, 
HSO-GI, European Space Agency, 
European Space Operations Centre, 
Robert-Bosch-Str 5, 
64293 Darmstadt, 
Germany. 
 
Phone; +49 6151 90 2896 
Fax;      +49 6151 90 3010 
E-Mail;  colin.haddow at esa.int 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 
 
 
 
From:        "Barkley, Erik J (US 3970)" <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>  
To:        "Colin.Haddow at esa.int" <Colin.Haddow at esa.int>  
Date:        18/01/2022 21:02  
Subject:        RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: CESG-P-2021-12-002 Approval to publish CCSDS 902.2-B-1, Cross   Support 
Service Management—Communications Planning   Information Format (Blue Book, Issue 1) 
 
 
 
 
Hello Colin, 
 
My sense is that you might in a better position to address Tomaso's conditions.  Nonetheless, if you prefer that I 
address the conditions please do not hesitate to let me know.   
 
Best regards, 
-Erik 
 
-----Original Message----- 
From: CCSDS Secretariat <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>  
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 11:16 
To: Barkley, Erik J (US 3970) <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>; Colin.Haddow at esa.int 
Cc: Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: CESG-P-2021-12-002 Approval to publish CCSDS 902.2-B-1, Cross Support Service 
Management—Communications Planning Information Format (Blue Book, Issue 1) 
 
Dear Document Rapporteur, 
 
The CESG poll to approve publication of CCSDS 902.2-B-1, Cross Support Service Management—
Communications Planning Information Format (Blue Book, Issue 1) concluded with conditions. Please negotiate 
disposition of the conditions directly with the AD(s) who voted to approve with conditions and CC the Secretariat 
on all related correspondence. 
 
 
CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2021-12-002 Approval to publish CCSDS 902.2-B-1, Cross Support Service 
Management—Communications Planning Information Format (Blue Book, Issue 1) Results of CESG poll beginning 
31 December 2021 and ending 14 January 2022: 
 
               Abstain:  0 (0%) Approve 
Unconditionally:  3 (75%) (Barkley, Duhaze, Aguilar Sanchez) Approve with Conditions:  1 (25%) (Cola) 
Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%) 
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS: 
 
   Tomaso de Cola (Approve with 
Conditions):  1) References [3] and [6] are not used in the specification: do we really need them? 
 
2)Many classes point to the attributed defined in [4] which however appears as a forthcoming CCSDS standard, as 
such it is apparently not possible to check its content and which attributes should be used in those classes. 
 
3) Classes defined in 3.3.1.12-3.3.1.17 shall include a number of attributes that are then listed in following tables. 
There, however, all those attributes appear as not mandatory ('N').  
As such, is it really correct to say that the class SHALL contain those attributes? 
 
 
Total Respondents:  4 
 
No response was received from the following Area(s): 
 
   SEA 
 
 
 
SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Approved with Conditions 
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            Generate  
CMC poll after conditions have been addressed 
 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
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).