[CESG] [EXTERNAL] RE: MAL PIDs spreadsheet

Shames, Peter M (US 312B) peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov
Tue Jul 19 15:58:31 UTC 2022

Dear Klaus-Juergen,

Thank you for your handling of this matter in a way that is faithful to the CCSDS Principles and operational guidelines.  That is really appreciated.  This is a challenging and contentious topic.

That said, I must add this.  As I stated yesterday (and previously), in my unbiased assessment the current contents, structure, and presentation of concepts and materials in the MAL document already are in a form that matches the CCSDS definition of a normative, “foundational”, Magenta Book, not a Blue Book.  What it lacks to meet the MB tests is the correct formatting, title, and document number.

The challenge for the SM&C WG is to turn that document into something that really meets the Blue Book test of:

Recommended Standards must be complete, unambiguous and at a sufficient level of technical detail that they can be directly implemented and used for space-mission interoperability and cross support.

Right now, in my technical judgment, that document does not meet this test.  All other technical and editorial details aside, that is at the heart of it.  After the CESG does due diligence, as agreed, we will have all of their assessments of this as well.  I believe that doing this CESG assessment is what we have agreed to.

If the CMC agreed to a Blue Book, and CESG assessment of this document, after the WG has applied its remedies, it that it does not meet that test, then we have a problem.  I am not pre-judging where the WG efforts and the CESG evaluation of the outcome ends up.  Just trying to be really clear about the test that must be met for any CCSDS Blue Book.

Very best regards, Peter

From: Klaus-Juergen Schulz <Klaus-Juergen.Schulz at esa.int>
Date: Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 2:33 AM
To: Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>, Erik Barkley <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: CESG <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [CESG] MAL PIDs spreadsheet

Dear Peter,

Thank you very much for your summary.

As I stated yesterday to turn the BB into a MB is not an option for me, as there is a CCSDS project for a BB update agreed by CMC.

The BB proposal shall be updated to improve the quality and make it suitable for agency review based on the inputs of the area directors.

Only in case of continued disagreement after the update I will call for another CESG meeting, which I hope can be avoided.

Best Regards,


From: CESG <cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> On Behalf Of Shames, Peter M (US 312B) via CESG
Sent: 18 July 2022 22:47
To: Barkley, Erik J (US 3970) <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: cesg at mailman.ccsds.org
Subject: Re: [CESG] MAL PIDs spreadsheet

Dear Erik, at al,

Thanks for the reminder to provide the SM&C WG PID response spreadsheet, along with my rejoinders, as reviewed.  I think you will find that the PPT file, “SEA MO MAL document analysis 11Jul22” accurately summarizes the intent of my original PIDs.   There are some “further clarifications”, I added in lines 25-29 of this spreadsheet after reviewing the PIDs and responses.  These are highly relevant, but did not appear in the original for reasons that I think will be clear.

Related to that, there was one additional discussion topic that briefly shows up on pg 15 of the PPT, that of the PICS pro forma, but it only gets a bullet and not a separate page.  I remind you that during the meeting we did compare the one page “PICS” in the MAL BB with parts of the comparable section in the CSS CSTS Framework, 921x1b2.  I think the differences in the level of care and detail is informative.

I will acknowledge, as Mehran pointed out, that many of my comments in the original text were formed as questions.  These questions were intended to get the SM&C WG to think carefully about the issues that were being raised because they were, almost uniformly, issues and concerns that could not be repaired with any simple “From: => To:” formulation.  In my judgement that form of input is only really suitable for simple editorial repairs to a sentence or a paragraph.

These issues are much broader and more pervasive than that, and I hope that has now been made crystal clear.

Lastly, I wish to state with clarity what I think we all agreed to:

  1.  That all of the members of the CESG who did not vote in the formal poll, or who voted “Approve Unconditionally”, but then added comments to the effect that they agreed with my inputs, agreed to do the following:
     *   Review the submitted PIDs, the WG dispositions, and my rejoinders in the attached Excel file.
     *   Review the summary analysis PPT file, “SEA MO MAL document analysis 11Jul22”, as presented.
     *   Assess whether the statements made in this analysis are accurate when compared to the cited sections and text in the MAL BB.
     *   Provide written feedback on their assessment of this analysis and the PIDs, preferably with some of their own supporting analysis and detail.
  2.  That the MOIMS SM&C WG review all of these inputs, both from me and from these other Area Directors, and provide, after suitable discussion, their responses, including:
     *   Re-assessment of their PID responses in light of these discussions.
     *   Assessment of the written inputs from the other Area Directors.
     *   Propose their approach for remedying these issues, either by editing the document so that it remedies the issues and aligns with CCSDS Blue Book publication standards, and CCSDS BB document norms, or by agreeing to reformat it as a normative, Magenta Book, “foundational” abstract reference model.
  3.  That I, and preferably the other CESG Area Directors, meet with the SM&C WG to review this feedback and resolve any remaining issues.

IIn fact, I think that this is a significant enough concern that it would be ideal if all CESG members, including those who voted “Approve Unconditionally”, would participate in this process as well.   Only in this way can we assess if there really is consensus on the path forward.

I am willing to commit to this.

For the sake of all concerned, including the WG, the Area, the CESG, our member agencies, and all of our users I think it would be best to get these issues resolved.

Best regards, Peter

From: Erik Barkley <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Date: Monday, July 18, 2022 at 12:24 PM
To: Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Cc: CESG <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>>
Subject: MAL PIDs spreadsheet

Hello Peter,

As you may recall, I volunteered to take a look at the MO MAL Agency Review CESG Poll PIDs and check them against the latest MAL document.  I see the presentation, dated July 11 in the CWE for CESG, but I do not find the spreadsheet there.  Can you please either send or (probably better) post the spreadsheet?  Thank you.

Best regards,

Erik Barkley
Cross Support Services Area Director
Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems

+1 818.393.4972

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/20220719/c7950725/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the CESG mailing list