[CESG] CESG-P-2023-10-007 Approval to publish CCSDS 870.0-G-1, Electronic Data Sheets and Dictionary of Terms for Onboard Devices and Components (Green Book, Issue 1)

Wed Jan 31 20:31:02 UTC 2024

Dear CESG Members,

Conditions for approval of CCSDS 870.0-G-1, Electronic Data Sheets and Dictionary of Terms for Onboard Devices and Components (Green 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:	Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de
Sent:	Wednesday, January 24, 2024 8:14 AM
To:	peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov; r.krosley at andropogon.org; 
Ignacio.Aguilar.Sanchez at esa.int
Cc:	Jonathan.J.Wilmot at NASA.gov
Subject:	AW: [EXTERNAL] RE: CESG-P-2023-10-007 Approval to publish CCSDS 870.0-
G-1, Electronic Data Sheets and Dictionary of Terms for Onboard Devices and 
Components (Green Book, Issue 1)

Also ok for me.

Thank you for the effort in clarifying your approach and the proposed improvements.

Best,

Tomaso

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Shames, Peter M (US 312B) <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov> 
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 24. Januar 2024 02:36
An: r.krosley at andropogon.org; de Cola, Tomaso <Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de>; 
Ignacio.Aguilar.Sanchez at esa.int
Cc: Jonathan.J.Wilmot at NASA.gov
Betreff: Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: CESG-P-2023-10-007 Approval to publish CCSDS 870.0-G-1, Electronic Data 
Sheets and Dictionary of Terms for Onboard Devices and Components (Green Book, Issue 1)

Hi Ramon,

Thanks.  And yes, your interpretation of the intent is correct.

I find this version more acceptable.  If Tomaso agrees you can proceed.

Thanks, Peter

On 1/23/24, 5:14 PM, "r.krosley at andropogon.org <mailto:r.krosley at andropogon.org>" 
<r.krosley at andropogon.org <mailto:r.krosley at andropogon.org>> wrote:

Hi Tomaso and Peter,
I'm getting the idea that there should be a set of unique terms for all of CCSDS that can be reused in 
various publications with different details but overlapping base concepts.
To refer to terms in the 870 green book, I am following the format used in the Space Packet Protocol 
Blue Book 133.0-B-2, in which the references to terms defined in other books (and whose status is 
"assigned" in SANA registry of terms) are in separate sub-sections of the normative terms in each 
referencing book. The sub-sections of section 1.6 in the attached 870 green book have this form. So, for 
example, "activity" was removed from section 1.6 and moved to section 1.6.1 with a reference to the 
assigned definition in the RASDS book.
The usage of these terms in the 870 green book is explained in NOTE paragraphs, which should not go 
into the SANA registry of terms. If these NOTE's would go into the SANA registry of terms, then I will 
remove them.
Ramon

-----Original Message-----
From: Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de <mailto:Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de> <Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de 
<mailto:Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de>> 
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2024 1:55 AM
To: peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov <mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>; r.krosley at andropogon.org 
<mailto:r.krosley at andropogon.org>; Ignacio.Aguilar.Sanchez at esa.int 
<mailto:Ignacio.Aguilar.Sanchez at esa.int>
Cc: Jonathan.J.Wilmot at NASA.gov <mailto:Jonathan.J.Wilmot at NASA.gov>
Subject: AW: [EXTERNAL] RE: CESG-P-2023-10-007 Approval to publish CCSDS 870.0-G-1, Electronic Data 
Sheets and Dictionary of Terms for Onboard Devices and Components (Green Book, Issue 1)

I tend to agree with you Peter, at some point an harmonization exercise should be done through all 
definitions to make them consistent. I know this a problem not only for CCSDS but also in other 
standardization bodies (e.g., ETSI) where some old definitions propagated in the years and got modified 
by later standards, so that at the end the in online glossaries one could find multiple instances for the 
same term, which is my opinion to be avoided. This exercise is obviously not in the context of this CESG 
review, but it would be good if no new definitions were introduced now unless strongly necessary (and 
well justified). Personally I'd be more in favour of creating a link to 133.0, but I'm not against 850 
definition. The main difference I see is that SPP spec clearly points to the variable nature, while 850 is 
more open.

My 0.02 cents,

Tomaso

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Shames, Peter M (US 312B) <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov 
<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>> 
Gesendet: Montag, 22. Januar 2024 23:14
An: r.krosley at andropogon.org <mailto:r.krosley at andropogon.org>; de Cola, Tomaso 
<Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de <mailto:Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de>>; Ignacio.Aguilar.Sanchez at esa.int 
<mailto:Ignacio.Aguilar.Sanchez at esa.int>
Cc: Jonathan.J.Wilmot at NASA.gov <mailto:Jonathan.J.Wilmot at NASA.gov>
Betreff: Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: CESG-P-2023-10-007 Approval to publish CCSDS 870.0-G-1, Electronic Data 
Sheets and Dictionary of Terms for Onboard Devices and Components (Green Book, Issue 1)

Hi Ramon,

You are correct that the SANA RMP, CCSDS 313.2-Y-2, is only up to rev 2 at this point. My error.

After looking at the terms you identified as falling into the overlap category, and keeping in mind that 
SOIS and the EDS / DoT are focused primarily on spacecraft on-board components, "to describe in an 
interchangeable format the data interfaces of onboard devices and components, complying with SOIS". 

From that perspective I can understand that some of these definitions, like component, or device, or 
activity, might differ in perspective from those already documented, but most of them, to my mind 
could be identical in all of the possible flight & ground contexts that I can think of. For instance, why 
would "packet", which is defined in a SLS spec, differ? The same holds for "command", "encoding", 
"type". What is it about the SOIS on-board environment that requires a different definition for these 
terms?

I just searched in the Terms registry 
(https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://sanaregistry.org/r/terms__;!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!IsuASmUwJk64T
-mIlbWwr85Zx7sKdG3CwBSLrCIkc6S9WeXT-K4_EaQ-oDJCnV1J3m-rK81AJCqpPrsCWFuMjowFDb4Qwpg$ 
<https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://sanaregistry.org/r/terms__;!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!IsuASmUwJk64T
-mIlbWwr85Zx7sKdG3CwBSLrCIkc6S9WeXT-K4_EaQ-oDJCnV1J3m-
rK81AJCqpPrsCWFuMjowFDb4Qwpg$> ) for the term "packet". We already have the strange enough 
situation where there are three definitions of the term "packet" and all three are different. Two of them 
are SOIS definitions, from 850.0-G-1 and 851.0-M-1, and one is from SLS 200.0-G-6. The fact that some 
of these are from Green Books is a little suspect, since those are not normative, but let's leave that aside 
for now.

The SPP doc, 133.0-B-2, defines all of the gory details of a Space Packet, which is presumably the data 
entity that the term "packet" is referencing, but it does not offer a formal definition for it. The closest it 
gets is in sec 3.2.2.1, where it states:

3.2.2.1 The Space Packet shall be a variable-length, delimited, octet-aligned data unit defined in section 
4 of this Recommended Standard.

In your doc the new definition for "packet" is "Delimited octet-aligned data unit."

The existing 850.0-G-1 definition is "Delimited octet aligned data unit." Only subtlety different.

Why couldn't we just reference the existing 850 definition, or the 133.0 one? Do we really need to add 
to the Terms registry clutter? Wouldn't it be better to move in the direction of de-cluttering it?

I did not check the other terms for alignment, but I would request that someone from the SOIS Area do 
that. There may be good reasons for some terms to be redefined, but please let's have a good reason for 
it. Ok? 

Maybe I'm just being fussy, but I do think we need to push back on entropy when and where we can.

Thanks, Peter

On 1/21/24, 9:48 AM, "r.krosley at andropogon.org <mailto:r.krosley at andropogon.org> 
<mailto:r.krosley at andropogon.org <mailto:r.krosley at andropogon.org>>" <r.krosley at andropogon.org 
<mailto:r.krosley at andropogon.org> <mailto:r.krosley at andropogon.org 
<mailto:r.krosley at andropogon.org>>> wrote:

Hi Peter,

There is one of your comments in the document to which I haven't yet responded: "I’m concerned that a 
lot of these definitions look quite accurate and useful, but that they are different from what is already 
formalized in the published set of CCSDS terms. As required in the SANA guide, CCSDS 313.1-Y-3, Sec 
3.4.4 CCSDS TERMINOLOGY (GLOSSARY, TERMS, AND ABBREVIATIONS) (TERMINOLOGY)"

I only found the "-2" SANA guide published online. Perhaps the "-3" SANA guide is more specific about 
the namespace consideration that I describe here.

I think that the following terms may fall into the category that you described:
activity
command
component
device
encoding
interface
packet
parameter
range
type
variable
These terms also appear in the SANA CCSDS registry of terms. Of these terms, only "encoding" seems to 
have an exact match between the green book and the SANA registry. The other terms differ more or less 
from the terms in the SANA registry. The reason for these differences comes from their usage in the 
context of electronic data sheet descriptions, compared to CCSDS data communication protocols. I think 
that these differences are to be expected between namespaces.
Our SANA registry of terms seems to implement namespaces by including a link to the book from which 
a definition of a term was taken. This means that the green book definitions of the terms above would 
be appropriately marked in their own namespace when the 870 green book is published. Let me know 
what you think.

Ramon

-----Original Message-----
From: Shames, Peter M (US 312B) <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov 
<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov> <mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov 
<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>>> 
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2024 12:37 PM
To: r.krosley at andropogon.org <mailto:r.krosley at andropogon.org> <mailto:r.krosley at andropogon.org 
<mailto:r.krosley at andropogon.org>>; Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de <mailto:Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de> 
<mailto:Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de <mailto:Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de>>; Ignacio.Aguilar.Sanchez at esa.int 
<mailto:Ignacio.Aguilar.Sanchez at esa.int> <mailto:Ignacio.Aguilar.Sanchez at esa.int 
<mailto:Ignacio.Aguilar.Sanchez at esa.int>>
Cc: Jonathan.J.Wilmot at NASA.gov <mailto:Jonathan.J.Wilmot at NASA.gov> 
<mailto:Jonathan.J.Wilmot at NASA.gov <mailto:Jonathan.J.Wilmot at NASA.gov>>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: CESG-P-2023-10-007 Approval to publish CCSDS 870.0-G-1, Electronic Data 
Sheets and Dictionary of Terms for Onboard Devices and Components (Green Book, Issue 1)

Hi Ramon,

Looks pretty good to me. A couple of issues raised in the body of the text. See attached.

Thanks, Peter

On 1/9/24, 11:38 AM, "r.krosley at andropogon.org <mailto:r.krosley at andropogon.org> 
<mailto:r.krosley at andropogon.org <mailto:r.krosley at andropogon.org>> 
<mailto:r.krosley at andropogon.org <mailto:r.krosley at andropogon.org> 
<mailto:r.krosley at andropogon.org <mailto:r.krosley at andropogon.org>>>" <r.krosley at andropogon.org 
<mailto:r.krosley at andropogon.org> <mailto:r.krosley at andropogon.org 
<mailto:r.krosley at andropogon.org>> <mailto:r.krosley at andropogon.org 
<mailto:r.krosley at andropogon.org> <mailto:r.krosley at andropogon.org 
<mailto:r.krosley at andropogon.org>>>> wrote:

Dear document reviewers,
Thank you for your helpful inputs. Here is a summary of what has been changed. Please let me know 
whether these changes are effective responses for your intent. A copy of the altered document is 
attached, so you can see the changes in context.

1. Wrong numbering of reference list:
Accepted. The recommended change has been implemented. In summary, the following changes to 
reference numbers were made:
previous changed to comment
-------- ---------- -------
[1] [4] cross-references in text were changed from book title to "reference [4]"
[2] obsolete reference
[3] [1] recommended
[4] [2] recommended
[5] [5] a cross-reference has been added in Section 7 [6] [6] no change [7] [7] no change [8] [8] no 
change [9] [3] recommended [10] [9] there are fewer references now

2. Executive Summary:
The executive summary has been moved to section 1.4, and its title line ("Executive Summary") has 
been removed.

3. The term "vehicle":
The term "vehicle" has been replaced by "spacecraft" in both text and diagrams.

4. Terms and acronyms need review:
The document has been "scrubbed" to define terms and acronyms in a timely way for the reader. In case 
I missed a particular sample term or acronym, please let me know, and I will correct that and others like 
it.

Ramon Krosley

-----Original Message-----
From: CCSDS Secretariat <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net <mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net> 
<mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net <mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>> 
<mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net <mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net> 
<mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net <mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>>>>
Sent: Friday, December 1, 2023 8:31 AM
To: Jonathan.J.Wilmot at NASA.gov <mailto:Jonathan.J.Wilmot at NASA.gov> 
<mailto:Jonathan.J.Wilmot at NASA.gov <mailto:Jonathan.J.Wilmot at NASA.gov>> 
<mailto:Jonathan.J.Wilmot at NASA.gov <mailto:Jonathan.J.Wilmot at NASA.gov> 
<mailto:Jonathan.J.Wilmot at NASA.gov <mailto:Jonathan.J.Wilmot at NASA.gov>>>; 
r.krosley at andropogon.org <mailto:r.krosley at andropogon.org> <mailto:r.krosley at andropogon.org 
<mailto:r.krosley at andropogon.org>> <mailto:r.krosley at andropogon.org 
<mailto:r.krosley at andropogon.org> <mailto:r.krosley at andropogon.org 
<mailto:r.krosley at andropogon.org>>>
Cc: Peter.M.Shames at jpl.nasa.gov <mailto:Peter.M.Shames at jpl.nasa.gov> 
<mailto:Peter.M.Shames at jpl.nasa.gov <mailto:Peter.M.Shames at jpl.nasa.gov>> 
<mailto:Peter.M.Shames at jpl.nasa.gov <mailto:Peter.M.Shames at jpl.nasa.gov> 
<mailto:Peter.M.Shames at jpl.nasa.gov <mailto:Peter.M.Shames at jpl.nasa.gov>>>; 
Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de <mailto:Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de> <mailto:Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de 
<mailto:Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de>> <mailto:Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de <mailto:Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de> 
<mailto:Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de <mailto:Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de>>>; Ignacio.Aguilar.Sanchez at esa.int 
<mailto:Ignacio.Aguilar.Sanchez at esa.int> <mailto:Ignacio.Aguilar.Sanchez at esa.int 
<mailto:Ignacio.Aguilar.Sanchez at esa.int>> <mailto:Ignacio.Aguilar.Sanchez at esa.int 
<mailto:Ignacio.Aguilar.Sanchez at esa.int> <mailto:Ignacio.Aguilar.Sanchez at esa.int 
<mailto:Ignacio.Aguilar.Sanchez at esa.int>>>
Subject: Re: CESG-P-2023-10-007 Approval to publish CCSDS 870.0-G-1, Electronic Data Sheets and 
Dictionary of Terms for Onboard Devices and Components (Green Book, Issue 1)

Dear Document Rapporteur,

The CESG poll to approve publication of CCSDS 870.0-G-1, Electronic Data Sheets and Dictionary of 
Terms for Onboard Devices and Components (Green 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-2023-10-007 Approval to publish CCSDS 870.0-G-1, Electronic Data Sheets 
and Dictionary of Terms for Onboard Devices and Components (Green Book, Issue 1)

Results of CESG poll beginning 31 October 2023 and ending 30 November 2023:

Abstain: 0 (0%) 
Approve Unconditionally: 1 (25%) (He)
Approve with Conditions: 3 (75%) (Shames, Cola, Aguilar Sanchez)
Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%) 

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions): I agree with the points made by Tomaso. The Exec Summary 
seems out of place, I'd include it in Sec 1.4, Rationale. The term "vehicle" is not defined in the document 
nor in CCSDS Terms registry. Recommend the use of "spacecraft", which is carefully defined. There 
appear to be a number of other terms that are used without being defined. There are a number of 
acronyms that are used before they are defined. Request that the document be "scrubbed" to fix all of 
these issue.

Tomaso de Cola (Approve with Conditions): 1) I've never seen a CCSDS document starting with an 
executive summary. Shall the content instead go in Section 1 or 2?

2) is the term vehicle consolidated in the CCSDS nomenclature? At first glance it's not fully clear to me 
which space assets we refer to with the term "vehicle".

Ignacio Aguilar Sanchez (Approve with Conditions): Concur with Tomaso and Peter.

Furthermore, I attach a minor editorial PID.

Total Respondents: 4

No response was received from the following Area(s):

MOIMS
CSS

SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with Conditions
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate CMC poll after conditions have been addressed

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *