[CESG] [EXTERNAL] RE: CESG-P-2024-04-002 Approval to release CCSDS 311.0-P-1.1, Reference Architecture for Space Data Systems (Pink Book, Issue 1.1) for CCSDS Agency review

Wed May 22 19:55:25 UTC 2024

Peter,

RASDSv2 is a fine term.  It’s use consistently throughout the document retires the condition.

Best regards,
-Erik

From: Shames, Peter M (US 312B) <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2024 12:30
To: Barkley, Erik J (US 3970) <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>; Thomas Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>
Cc: Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de; miles.gannett at logothete.net; CESG <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: CESG-P-2024-04-002 Approval to release CCSDS 311.0-P-1.1, Reference Architecture for Space Data Systems (Pink Book, Issue 1.1) for CCSDS Agency review

Erik & Tom,

I agree with using one term consistently.

As for the adoption of RASDS++ vs RASDS v2, I checked with Fred Slane.  His ISO TC20/SC14 organization is going to be a co-owner of the final document in ISO.  We have agreed to call it: RASDSv2.  This aligns with other similar document version changes, IPv4 vs IPv6, SysML vs SysMLv2, etc.  It also reflects that this is going to be published as CCSDS 311.0-B-2.  It is an extension and evolution of that original document.

So I request that Tom, during his editing, change all instances of RASDS and RASDS++ to read RASDSv2.

Erik, please signal that this meets your condition.

I think there was also one question from Wilmot asking if all the new terms would be updated in the SANA Terms registry.  My request is that the CTE perform that update after the final version of the document has been approved.

One last note about the review and publication process is also in order.  I have agreed with Fred Slane, chair of ISO TC20/SC14, that we will follow this process:

  1.  The document will go out for CCSDS Agency (and Observer, etc) review.
  2.  In parallel we will send the Review notice to ISO TC20/SC14 with a request that they ask their Agency membership to participate in the CCSDS review process.
  3.  In parallel I will be inviting outside systems architecture experts to also participate.
  4.  All RIDs that are returned will be reviewed and dispositioned within the SEA SAWG, with the option to augment membership with SC14 participants.
  5.  The final document, after the usual RID dispositioning, will be published as a CCSDS document.
  6.  That document will then be sent to ISO for the usual “fast track” cover page process, and the final approved document will be jointly published with an ISO number and attributed to both SC13 and SC14.

Anyone have any issues with this plan?

Thanks, Peter

From: Barkley, Erik J (US 3970) <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Date: Tuesday, May 21, 2024 at 4:34 PM
To: Thomas Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net<mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>>
Cc: Shames, Peter M (US 312B) <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> <Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de<mailto:Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de>>, miles.gannett at logothete.net<mailto:miles.gannett at logothete.net> <miles.gannett at logothete.net<mailto:miles.gannett at logothete.net>>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: CESG-P-2024-04-002 Approval to release CCSDS 311.0-P-1.1, Reference Architecture for Space Data Systems (Pink Book, Issue 1.1) for CCSDS Agency review
Tom,

I'm happy to see the RASDS++ vs RASDS concern addressed however you would like – just as long as a single term is used consistently, rather than leaving the reader wondering  if there is significance as to when RASDS++ is used vs RASDS. Frankly RASDS++ sounds like a marketing buzz word to me.  I’d suggest just indicating RASDS 2.0, but if you choose to use RASDS++ consistently throughout the document that is okay too.

-Erik

From: Thomas Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net<mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>>
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2024 12:44
To: Barkley, Erik J (US 3970) <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Cc: Shames, Peter M (US 312B) <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>; miles.gannett at logothete.net<mailto:miles.gannett at logothete.net>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: CESG-P-2024-04-002 Approval to release CCSDS 311.0-P-1.1, Reference Architecture for Space Data Systems (Pink Book, Issue 1.1) for CCSDS Agency review

Erik:

Since your acquiescence is limited to the  UML inheritance condition/question, I believe Peter’s initial response grants editorial freedom to accept your RASDS++ vs. RASDS proposal. Please respond by return email if you are satisfied that that condition is closed as well.

Tom

Logothete, L.L.C.
thomas.gannett at tgannett.net<mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>
+1 443 472 0805

From: Barkley, Erik J (US 3970) [mailto:erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov]
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2024 9:00 PM
To: Shames, Peter M (US 312B); Thomas Gannett; secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org>
Cc: Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de<mailto:Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de>; miles.gannett at logothete.net<mailto:miles.gannett at logothete.net>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: CESG-P-2024-04-002 Approval to release CCSDS 311.0-P-1.1, Reference Architecture for Space Data Systems (Pink Book, Issue 1.1) for CCSDS Agency review

Yes, that works.  UML inheritance condition/question resolved.  Thank you.

Best regards,
-Erik

From: Shames, Peter M (US 312B) <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2024 17:21
To: Barkley, Erik J (US 3970) <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>>; Thomas Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net<mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>>; secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org>
Cc: Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de<mailto:Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de>; miles.gannett at logothete.net<mailto:miles.gannett at logothete.net>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: CESG-P-2024-04-002 Approval to release CCSDS 311.0-P-1.1, Reference Architecture for Space Data Systems (Pink Book, Issue 1.1) for CCSDS Agency review

Hi Erik,

Yes.  You could say that “correspondence” is a specialization of “Association (other relationship, labelled)”.  That said, we did explicitly assign a relationship meaning, and a separate type of arrow, to this relationship.

If we address this in a footnote to Fig 3-3, stated thus:
“Relationships inherited from UML, with Correspondence added as a named extension to Association”

Does that meet your concern?

Thanks, Peter

From: Barkley, Erik J (US 3970) <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Date: Monday, May 20, 2024 at 4:07 PM
To: Shames, Peter M (US 312B) <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>>, Thomas Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net<mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>>, secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org> <secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org>>
Cc: Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de<mailto:Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de> <Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de<mailto:Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de>>, miles.gannett at logothete.net<mailto:miles.gannett at logothete.net> <miles.gannett at logothete.net<mailto:miles.gannett at logothete.net>>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: CESG-P-2024-04-002 Approval to release CCSDS 311.0-P-1.1, Reference Architecture for Space Data Systems (Pink Book, Issue 1.1) for CCSDS Agency review
Peter,

My suggestion is to note that the correspondence is derived from the UML "Association" relationship.  Given that this is making use of UML class diagram definitions to start with, that seems to be the best “home” for the RASDS derivation.  Do you agree?

-Erik

From: Shames, Peter M (US 312B) <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2024 11:35
To: Thomas Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net<mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>>; secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org>
Cc: Barkley, Erik J (US 3970) <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>>; Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de<mailto:Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de>; miles.gannett at logothete.net<mailto:miles.gannett at logothete.net>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: CESG-P-2024-04-002 Approval to release CCSDS 311.0-P-1.1, Reference Architecture for Space Data Systems (Pink Book, Issue 1.1) for CCSDS Agency review

Hi Tom,

I am completely confident that the issues I pointed out will be satisfied during your final editorial pass over the document.

Having just reviewed the comments from the other ADs I am similarly confident that you can handle all of these as editorial as well.  I hope the other ADs concur.

The only even slightly crunchy comment, IMHO, was Erik’s.  He is correct that most of Fig 3-3 was, in fact, inherited from UML.  However, in Fig 3-3 we also added “Correspondence”, which is not a relationship that UML has defined.  It is a new relationship added to meet requirements from ISO 42010.  Hence “derived from”.

Is that acceptable?  Or would you rather put in a footnote stating something like “Inherited from UML, with Correspondence extension”

Thanks, Peter

From: Thomas Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net<mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>>
Date: Monday, May 20, 2024 at 9:06 AM
To: secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org> <secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org>>, Shames, Peter M (US 312B) <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Cc: Barkley, Erik J (US 3970) <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>>, Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de<mailto:Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de> <Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de<mailto:Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de>>, miles.gannett at logothete.net<mailto:miles.gannett at logothete.net> <miles.gannett at logothete.net<mailto:miles.gannett at logothete.net>>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: CESG-P-2024-04-002 Approval to release CCSDS 311.0-P-1.1, Reference Architecture for Space Data Systems (Pink Book, Issue 1.1) for CCSDS Agency review
Peter:

As discussed previously, in order to expedite processing, CCSDS 311.0-P-1.1, Reference Architecture for Space Data Systems (Pink Book, Issue 1.1), was placed in CESG polling while undergoing concurrent editing.

If you are confident, as I am, that the draft resulting from the in-progress editing will correct the editorial issues identified in your conditional approval, perhaps along with other editorial issues,  please reply by return email stating that your conditions are effectively satisfied.

Tom

Logothete, L.L.C.
thomas.gannett at tgannett.net<mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>
+1 443 472 0805

-----Original Message-----
From: CCSDS Secretariat [mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net]
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2024 12:50 PM
To: Peter.M.Shames at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:Peter.M.Shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: Erik.Barkley at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:Erik.Barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>; 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>
Subject: Re: CESG-P-2024-04-002 Approval to release CCSDS 311.0-P-1.1, Reference Architecture for Space Data Systems (Pink Book, Issue 1.1) for CCSDS Agency review

Dear Document Rapporteur,

The CESG poll to approve release of CCSDS 311.0-P-1.1, Reference Architecture for Space Data Systems (Pink Book, Issue 1.1) for CCSDS Agency review 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-2024-04-002 Approval to release CCSDS 311.0-P-1.1, Reference Architecture for Space Data Systems (Pink Book, Issue 1.1) for CCSDS Agency review

Results of CESG poll beginning 28 April 2024 and ending 17 May 2024:

                 Abstain:  0 (0%)
 Approve Unconditionally:  2 (40%) (Aguilar Sanchez, Wilmot)
 Approve with Conditions:  3 (60%) (Barkley, Shames, Cola)
 Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

     Erik Barkley (Approve with Conditions):  1) There are about 90 uses of the term "RASDS++" in the document and about 140 uses of the term "RASDS" (without "++").  There does not seem to be any indication in the book if there is to be inferred singificance when one term is used vs another.  I suspect not, and so would suggest simply introducing this as  RASDS V 2.0 and then just uniformly refer to this as RASDS rather than switching terms back and forth.

2) figure 3 -3 -- the arrow defintions appear to be inherited from UML rather than derived -- there is not explanation offered as to what the derived properties are.  As such I recommend that this be stated as inherited, not derived.

     Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions):  Tom, excellent job with lengthy & challenging input.  There are a few typos, as follows:

Sec 2, pg - all, fix page numbers, they should read 2-1, 2-2…. The first page is just numbered “8”.
Sec 2.2, pg 8, remove highlight on text 5.5.4.
Sec 4, pg 4-1, change title to just “Enterprise Viewpoint”
Sec 5.4.2.2, pg 5-3, Fig 5-2, White background on arrows obscures underlying figure elements
Sec 9.9, pg 9-15, Fig 9-9, White background on arrows obscures underlying figure elements

     Tomaso de Cola (Approve with Conditions):  Just two minor points:

1) Figure 5-2 should be enhanced (similar comment from Peter)

2) table 9-1 mentions DTN layer with 'BPv7' between brackets: I'd simply point to Bundle Protocol still with 'BPv7' in brackets. Then as to the description, it emphasises on the routing part. I'd generally point to the store-carry-forward paradigm.

3) still in table 9-1, there is the pointer to the optical physical item, why not including also the C&S? The table mentioned in the previous rows the TM/TC C&S (RF part), so that I see the inclusion of the optical one worth for the sake of the completeness.

Total Respondents:  5

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

     MOIMS

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

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20240522/d6447603/attachment-0001.htm>