[CESG] [EXTERNAL] RE: CCSDS 902.6-B

[Shames, Peter M (US 312B)]

Folks,

I think that this is one of those grey areas (no, I am not advocating another new CCSDS Book Color) where we need to agree on a de facto policy.

Here is my thinking:

  1.  We have a set of formal policies for different book colors, as defined in the Bible and the Pubs manual.  Note that I’m not using the formal doc numbers, but you all know what I mean from the context.  This is, clearly, casual usage.
  2.  The Pubs manual says that only Blue and Magenta Books, and other published documents, may be used in the formal reference list in a CCSDS document (sec 3.4.1.8.a).  It does not provide a definitive list of such documents, it only, in Fig B-1, provides examples of what may be used, including:  CCSDS document, ISO Standard, Articles in professional journals, papers in proceedings documents, Internet standards & RFCs, and “random technical documents or websites”.
  3.  I could argue that a WG White Paper, of a certain maturity, could qualify as a “random technical document” and that a reference to where it might be found, in the CWE, could qualify as a “random web site”.
  4.  I’m not arguing that this class of docs should be treated as formal, Normative, documents.
  5.  Any such White Papers, White Books, Internet Drafts (ID), and other not yet ready to approve and publish documents are DRAFTs, and ought, IMHO, be treated as such.

So then the question is, what can we do with these, and why would we even want to mention them since they are too immature to publish?

My assertion is this:

  1.  CCSDS publishes a variety of standards and recommended practices.  These have well established guidelines as to what they must contain and the properties that they are to embody.  We all (WG, AD, CESG, CTE) have the role(s) of trying to ensure that the published docs are faithful to our established practices and that these documents have been properly vetted.
  2.  But then, many of our “ISO layer by ISO layer” documents really need to be understood in the context of the “protocol stack” within which they live.  So we often include, within the normative documentation for a single protocol layer N, a non-normative section on required and provided services, exposed at the N+1 and N-1 Service Access Point (SAP) interfaces, and these document what is expected of the upper and lower protocols in the stack.
  3.  Often we have a specific upper or lower layer protocol in mind when we write these standards, and this is a practice that is as old as “ISO BRM” time.  That’s where these “layer N” and “SAP” terms were defined.
  4.  Sometimes the upper layer (or even lower layer) protocol is not yet defined, and we just publish an abstract “SAP”.  This is ok.  In fact, it is even recommended so that the designer of the next layer in the stack knows what is expected to be provided (by the lower layer) or offered  (to the upper layer).
  5.  In the case of some protocol layers we may also identify that other ”on-the-side” capabilities are required, such as authentication, encryption, or management.  These may be optional, implemented “by management”, or “by out of band means”, or “by a separate, as yet TBD, protocol that interfaces on the side”.  Security and management are often like this.  We “put the hooks in”, sometimes leave them as optional, and often hang things on these hooks afterwards.
  6.  Some of these protocols, like Erik’s “CCSDS 902.4-R-1, Cross Support Service Management—Service Package Data Formats (Red Book, Issue 1, September 2022)” have mature Red Book drafts, but are still in the process of “becoming”.   Some are still in a White Book / conceptual stage.
  7.  We can ignore them entirely, or we can acknowledge that they exist, or that they are being defined, or that they are a gleam in someone’s eye.  We need to do this carefully so as not to confuse the readers.
  8.  Particularly in new areas of “growth” in CCSDS we have a number of these instances.  We have them in SIS DTN (routing, network management, security/identity), we have them in CSS SM (SMURF and friends, FRM), and we have them in MOIMS and SOIS (the Application and Support Layer (ASL) document is a Green Book because so much of what we wanted to document was based on a mix of Blue, Magenta, and Green material.

Enough discourse, I think you get the idea.  My recommendation, for what it is worth, is that we adopt this approach:

Normative References: Follow the CCSDS Guidelines for BB, MB, and other forms, as Tom has requested and as we have all been doing.

Non-normative References: Where required or of significant value to the readers, a CCSDS WG may include such non-normative references as are useful to fill in gaps, or to sketch out where a related set of standards are going.  We have published examples of this.

  1.  Put these into the Non-normative References section of the document (adhere to the Pubs Doc 3.4.1.8.b)
  2.  If they are published documents mark them as required in Annex B.
  3.  If they are not yet published, but are valuable for understanding and are sufficiently mature and can be found on-line, include them in the Non-Normative References section and mark them as [Future], in both the text where they appear and in the Non-Normative Annex.
  4.  If such [Future] references are included, an introductory paragraph must be included in the text documenting that these somewhat speculative draft standards have been included and describing the cautions that a reader should exercise.
  5.  An example of such text may be found in the SCCS-ARD, 901.1-M-1, Sec 1.3.2 Limit of Applicability.  Similar text appears in the ASL GB, CCSDS 371.0-G-1, Sec 1.3 Rationale.

The rationale for such an approach, particularly for complex sets of standards, is that it allows us to “paint a picture” for the readers where some of the pieces are fully colored in and others are still blank, but where the intended contents are at least sketched out.  This helps them to understand what we are doing, and where we are going, but it is clearly not something that they can fully rely upon.

But this is, in my opinion, a far better approach than to just wave our hands, or leave blank spaces, or, even worse, to neglect to say anything and just leave a hole that someone may stumble into because we did not bother to say “watch out, construction zone ahead”.

Or maybe, just maybe, we need to amend the Pubs manual to make this clear.

Thanks, Peter


From: Barkley, Erik J (US 3970) <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: Monday, October 7, 2024 at 9:40 AM
To: Thomas Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>, LStafford at asrcfederal.com <LStafford at asrcfederal.com>
Cc: 'Smith, Danford S. (GSFC-590.0)[EMERITUS]' <danford.s.smith at nasa.gov>, Shames, Peter M (US 312B) <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: CCSDS 902.6-B
Tom,

Okay, I will take the issue up with the WG.  I can appreciate the "just the facts" approach for calling out normative references. But, the SMURF (902.9), defined partly by UML class diagrams, does include an abstract class for event sequence. So I would like to discuss excising the book reference with the SMURF book captain and the WG.

-Erik

From: Thomas Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>
Sent: Monday, October 7, 2024 09:19
To: Barkley, Erik J (US 3970) <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>; LStafford at asrcfederal.com
Cc: 'Smith, Danford S. (GSFC-590.0)[EMERITUS]' <danford.s.smith at nasa.gov>; Shames, Peter M (US 312B) <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: CCSDS 902.6-B

Erik:

Since those books are Magenta and by definition not directly implementable, the bar is substantially lower; and Peter has in recent years at least labeled such “forthcoming” twinkles in some working group’s eyes as ‘[future]’ (or some such).

The alternative approach is to list only existing, available books in normative references lists, but I have only reason and logic to support that argument.

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, October 07, 2024 12:10 PM
To: Thomas Gannett; LStafford at asrcfederal.com<mailto:LStafford at asrcfederal.com>
Cc: 'Smith, Danford S. (GSFC-590.0)[EMERITUS]'; Shames, Peter M (US 312B)
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: CCSDS 902.6-B

Tom,

Seems like that precedent was set many moons ago with the initial publication of the CS ARD and ADD whereby several planned recommendations where allowed to be stated as “forthcoming” in the list of references.   Can you suggest an alternate approach?

-Erik

From: Thomas Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net<mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>>
Sent: Monday, October 7, 2024 09:00
To: Barkley, Erik J (US 3970) <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>>; LStafford at asrcfederal.com<mailto:LStafford at asrcfederal.com>
Cc: 'Smith, Danford S. (GSFC-590.0)[EMERITUS]' <danford.s.smith at nasa.gov<mailto:danford.s.smith at nasa.gov>>; Shames, Peter M (US 312B) <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: CCSDS 902.6-B

Eric:

Nevertheless, the document is listed in the normative references of CCSDS 902.4-R-1, Cross Support Service Management—Service Package Data Formats (Red Book, Issue 1, September 2022), and anyone who might want to base an implementation on that Red Book would require access to all the normative references—thus my longstanding and continually repeated objection to the inclusion of unavailable (and/or imaginary as the case may be) documents in normative references lists.

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, October 07, 2024 11:52 AM
To: Thomas Gannett; LStafford at asrcfederal.com<mailto:LStafford at asrcfederal.com>
Cc: Smith, Danford S. (GSFC-590.0)[EMERITUS]; Shames, Peter M (US 312B)
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: CCSDS 902.6-B

Hi Laura, Tom,

This (I think) all stems from the MOSA CDE effort (I am copying Dan Smith for cognizance).

902.6 (Event Sequence) is a legitimately planned project in the CSS Area.    There is a rough draft book that exist, but resources are continually less than forthcoming to enable the project to formally get underway.  I recall having noted that there is no official project yet re 902.6 for the MOSA CDE folks.

I suspect the best response is just to say it is a planned standard but does not currently exist.

-Erik

From: Thomas Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net<mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>>
Sent: Monday, October 7, 2024 05:31
To: LStafford at asrcfederal.com<mailto:LStafford at asrcfederal.com>; Barkley, Erik J (US 3970) <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: CCSDS 902.6-B

Laura:

That is one of the many imaginary CSS books that the CSSM WG insists on including in normative reference lists, despite my many remonstrances over the years. You should direct all such inquiries to Eric.

Tom


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

From: Laura Stafford (Support) [mailto:secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org]
Sent: Monday, October 07, 2024 12:01 AM
Cc: Thomas Gannett
Subject: CCSDS 902.6-B

##- Please type your reply above this line -##

You are registered as a CC on this request (13235). Reply to this email to add a comment to the request.

Laura Stafford (ASRC Federal)

Oct 7, 2024, 12:00 AM EDT
Tom,
I looked in the CCSDS Project system and in the CCSDS Publications area, and could not find a book number or name per the request. Do you happen to know which book this could be?
Thanks,

Laura Stafford
CCSDS IT Tech Support
mailto:lstafford at asrcfederal.com<mailto:lstafford at asrcfederal.com>
o: 937-985-4445
7000 Muirkirk Meadows Drive, Beltsville, MD 20705
asrcfederal.com | Purpose Driven. Enduring Commitment.


Temansot

Oct 4, 2024, 2:53 PM EDT

Good afternoon,

I am one of the librarians at the National Reconnaissance Office and I'm
trying to locate a copy of CCSDS 902.6-B Space Link Event Sequence Data
Format. I've searched your website but haven't been able to locate this
document. Can you help me get a copy of this document or tell me where I
might find it?

Any assistance you could provide would be most appreciated.

Tracy Temanson
National Reconnaissance Office - Library
14675 Lee Road
Chantilly, VA 20151
(703) 808-3839
DSN: 898-3839
Email: tracy.temanson at nro.mil<mailto:tracy.temanson at nro.mil>

Attachment(s)
smime.p7s<https://urldefense.us/v3/__https:/scanss.zendesk.com/attachments/token/Is9b32M677MKrkAOznrorqX2F/?name=smime.p7s__;!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!JkgxIcToznBNfJEfOXgy3V6kV_ym3nduUPmvzpUd-9fsRNfXwK9cGtIgW1aQAtfVH5oUsrjUJZTFKQ_371eex2uHV1m6efdtroUX2g$>
ASRC Federal | Purpose Driven. Enduring Commitment.
[NVWRK9-ML5V5]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20241007/953dc94e/attachment-0001.htm>