[CESG] SEA Resolution - SEA-R-2024-09-01 Request Agency Review of D-DOR RDEF update 506.1_W_2

Thu Sep 19 16:51:07 UTC 2024

SEA Resolution - SEA-R-2024-09-01 Request Agency Review of D-DOR RDEF update 506.1_W_2

The CCSDS Systems Engineering Area (SEA) Area Director,

CONSIDERING that the Delta-DOR Working Group (DDOR WG) has:
o Updated the original version of the Delta-DOR Raw Data Exchange Format (RDEF) CCSDS 506.1-W-2, and
o Accommodated the new DOR tones (with reference to CCSDS 401.0-B update) and the use of SANA registries, and that
o The WG has reached consensus on requesting Agency review of this update, and
o The SEA AD has reviewed this document and concurs that it is ready for Agency review.

RESOLVES to request The Secretariat to process the attached draft document and to send it for CESG, and then CMC, approval to release for Agency Review.

RECOMMENDS that the CESG and CMC approve this resolution and, finally

REQUESTS that a CESG poll, and then a CMC poll, be conducted to approve release of this document for Agency review.

From: Javier De Vicente <Javier.DeVicente at esa.int>
Date: Wednesday, September 18, 2024 at 6:41 AM
To: Shames, Peter M (US 312B) <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: Volk, Christopher P (US 335D) <christopher.p.volk at jpl.nasa.gov>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: 506.1_W_2 for AD review: Updated version as per Spring24 discussions
Thanks Peter,

I am fine with the edits, I made a small addition (blue text) in the case of B2.3, B2.4 and B2.5 (B2.3 shown as example):

Format in the Alias field is DDOR:aaaa, where each a value corresponds to an alphanumeric character.

Acronyms have been reviewed and updated.

Clean copy attached. I am also attaching the original graphic files in case you then proceed to forward to the Chief Technical Editor. Please copy us if you do so so that we are aware.

Note for yellow highlighted text: Linked to the final version of the RFM Systems Blue Book and the publication of rec. 2.5.7B.

Regards,

                Javier

From: Shames, Peter M (US 312B) <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2024 2:56 AM
To: Javier De Vicente <Javier.DeVicente at esa.int>
Cc: Volk, Christopher P (US 335D) <christopher.p.volk at jpl.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: 506.1_W_2 for AD review: Updated version as per Spring24 discussions

Hi Javier,

I made a few edits to Annex B to further clarify what it is that I think you are trying to accomplish.  See if it makes sense to you.

I also found a few missing acronyms… there may be more, please check.

If this is acceptable to the WG please send me back the clean copy to be sent out for review.

Thanks, Peter

From: Javier De Vicente <Javier.DeVicente at esa.int<mailto:Javier.DeVicente at esa.int>>
Date: Friday, August 23, 2024 at 7:15 AM
To: Shames, Peter M (US 312B) <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Cc: Volk, Christopher P (US 335D) <christopher.p.volk at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:christopher.p.volk at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: 506.1_W_2 for AD review: Updated version as per Spring24 discussions
Thanks Peter,

Find attached the updated doc, which I hope addresses all your comments. As usual, clean and track change versions are attached.

I also attach an answer to your question about local aperture and spacecraft names in table 5-1.

Please also note my question about the publication of the future DDOR Architecture MB (CCSDS 506.2-R-0), where as far as I can tell the Agency Review process was successful (see my email on May29th) but where I am not aware of any further developments. I have gone through my emails and unless I have missed it I haven’t seen an ‘Autorization to Publish’ the document.

Regards,

                Javier

From: Shames, Peter M (US 312B) <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 12:00 AM
To: Javier De Vicente <Javier.DeVicente at esa.int<mailto:Javier.DeVicente at esa.int>>
Cc: Volk, Christopher P (US 335D) <christopher.p.volk at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:christopher.p.volk at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Subject: Re: 506.1_W_2 for AD review: Updated version as per Spring24 discussions

Hi Javier,

Well, the ball is now within sight of the goal, but it’s not yet in the goal.  Here is what is present, and what is missing:

In sec 1.6 you identify and name the several new SANA registries.  Good.

In sec 4 you identify where the contents of the various registries are to be used in file names and headers. Good.

In sec 5, in table 5-1, it appears that you are still allowing local aperture and spacecraft names to be used instead of adopting the new, defined, names from the new SANA registries.  I do not understand how this provides interoperability.

In sec 6 you do reference using the new registries for mission, aperture, etc.

In Annex A you identify how the aperture, mission, agency, aliases are to be used.

The biggest missing part is the pieces that must appear in the SANA Considerations section, in Annex B.  This is where, for each new registry that you wish to set up, you must tell the SANA Operator what the fields are in the new registry, what the allowed values are, and what policies are to be used to assign values.  You have parts of this defined within the other sections, like the size and format of the data fields and the keys to be used.

In sec 5 & 6 you mention the sizes of the new fields you want to reference.  Let’s just use Mission (spacecraft) as an example for now, but you’ll need to do the same for each new registry that you require.

New Mission registry (Reference 8)

Create a registry that has the following fields:

Mission Alias, 4 characters, alphameric

Agency assigned Spacecraft Name, max 32 characters, copied from Spacecraft Registry, Name field, for reference https://sanaregistry.org/r/spacecraft/<https://urldefense.us/v3/__https:/sanaregistry.org/r/spacecraft/__;!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!K_9N8fwuqjQwFTCXdjdq5XNMlvoUmtbl-QvRpVzGAb6Cbpjq4_9kRJiPnsr1dMnxBIZAd_4hsNcwCsrxtyue2f7Xv9D-xgX2Yk9o$>

Spacecraft OID, from Spacecraft Registry, OID field, https://sanaregistry.org/r/spacecraft/<https://urldefense.us/v3/__https:/sanaregistry.org/r/spacecraft/__;!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!K_9N8fwuqjQwFTCXdjdq5XNMlvoUmtbl-QvRpVzGAb6Cbpjq4_9kRJiPnsr1dMnxBIZAd_4hsNcwCsrxtyue2f7Xv9D-xgX2Yk9o$>

Registration Rule (from 313x0y3): b) Change requires an engineering review by a designated expert or expert group

(see 3.19). This is the Review Authority for the registry. The Review Authority for that registry is assigned by the CESG based on the WG recommendation.

The Expert Group is the SEA D-DOR WG.  Requests for a new Mission Alias registry entry shall be sent to the Chair of the SEA D-DOR WG, or, if the WG is no longer operational, to the SEA AD.  The Expert Group will assign the Alias and request the SANA Operator to create the entry, tied to the existing Spacecraft Name, and to make the update.

Do the same sort of thing for each of the other new “alias” registries that you need.  This becomes both the design of the registries that the SANA operator will create and the process for populating them, as needed.

I hope this makes sense.

Thanks, Peter

From: Javier De Vicente <Javier.DeVicente at esa.int<mailto:Javier.DeVicente at esa.int>>
Date: Monday, June 24, 2024 at 1:35 AM
To: Shames, Peter M (US 312B) <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Cc: Volk, Christopher P (US 335D) <christopher.p.volk at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:christopher.p.volk at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] FW: 506.1_W_2 for AD review: Updated version as per Spring24 discussions
I didn’t attach a clean version (no track changes) of the document, here it is.

Regards,

                Javier

From: Javier De Vicente
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 10:23 AM
To: Shames, Peter M (US 312B) <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Cc: Volk, Christopher P (US 335D) <christopher.p.volk at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:christopher.p.volk at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Subject: 506.1_W_2 for AD review: Updated version as per Spring24 discussions

Hi Peter,

It took a bit longer than expected, but here is the update of the DDOR RDEF BB following the discussions/agreements at the Spring24 meeting and a further review of the updated doc by the DDOR WG.

The text highlighted in yellow ‘assumes’ the update of CCSDS 401.0-B-32 to include PN DOR rec. 2.5.7.B (I guess as part of CCSDS 401.0-B-33, which I am not aware has yet been published).

Unless you tell me differently, I plan to send the doc to the SANA team upon your confirmation of readiness to submit to the CCSDS Chief Technical Editor.

On another note, I am still awaiting feedback on the publication of the future DDOR Architecture MB (CCSDS 506.2-R-0), where as far as I can tell the Agency Review process was successful (see my email on May29th).

Regards,

                Javier

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<mailto: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<mailto: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).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20240919/65c000fd/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 506x1R2_AfterCommentsFromADon20240913_Clean.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 270346 bytes
Desc: 506x1R2_AfterCommentsFromADon20240913_Clean.docx
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20240919/65c000fd/attachment-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Figure_2_1.eps
Type: application/postscript
Size: 116953 bytes
Desc: Figure_2_1.eps
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20240919/65c000fd/attachment-0002.eps>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Fig5_1.eps
Type: application/postscript
Size: 67785 bytes
Desc: Fig5_1.eps
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20240919/65c000fd/attachment-0003.eps>