[CMC] Re: [CESG] Re: [Sois-wir] [SOIS] Proposed way-forward for SOIS

Fri Feb 16 03:34:49 EST 2007

Adrian, I am thoroughly against this and it goes back on our previous
agreements. According to CESG directives, we have produced the Green book,
had it reviewed at CESG level, made the updates accordingly and now it should
go out without delay and in line with CCSDS procedure.

There may well be a need to update the Green Book but only after we have had
feedback from the draft Red Books in conjunction with prototyping but this
will not be before the end of the year. This is in-line with the SOIS
charter, which in turn is matched to our industrial support contracts and we
have no resources available for another Green book review cycle, so I cannot
commit to it.

I also do not agree that this is the same as the Cislunar situation. We have
3 Agencies actively participating in SOIS,  all representing flight systems
and the SOIS group has an agreed brief to provide Red and Green books. At ESA
and BNSC, the SOIS architecture is already being proposed for flight
implementation, in addition,  we have contracts running for Milbus and
Spacewire mapping. As I was at pains to point out in my report to the CESG,
we therefore have contractual commitments that rely on a published green book
and at least draft Red books, and any further delay will result in
contractual problems.

I therefore request that we stay with the previous agreements and publish the
Green book.

//ct

             "Adrian J. Hooke"                                               
             <adrian.j.hooke at jp                                              
             l.nasa.gov>                                                  To 
                                        Chris.Taylor at esa.int                 
             15/02/2007 16:52                                             cc 
                                        Spacecraft Onboard Interface         
                                        Services Area                        
                                        <sois at mailman.ccsds.org>, CCSDS      
                                        Engineering Steering Group - ADs     
                                        <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>, CCSDS      
                                        Management Council                   
                                        <cmc at mailman.ccsds.org>              
                                                                     Subject 
                                        Re: [CESG] Re: [Sois-wir] [SOIS]     
                                        Proposed way-forward for SOIS        

At 04:58 AM 2/15/2007, Chris.Taylor at esa.int wrote:
      Adrian, just one thing on the green book. It has already been for CESG
      review and updated according to Rids. It should therefore now go out to
      all Agencies as a baseline document.

Chris: I am reluctant to do this. I believe that we currently have two major
activities in CCSDS - SOIS and Cislunar - that potentially have sweeping
future ramifications and yet not all Agencies are "onboard". [Until recently,
SM&C would have been in that category too, though I am hopeful that by having
taken our time to be fully consultative, we are now moving down a track
towards consensus.]

I therefore think that we need to look at SOIS as a whole *package*, not as
individual Books, and that we need to come to a consensus CESG technical
decision as to how to proceed. After the Area Directors get to look at that
whole package, and have the opportunity to seek advice from many quarters, it
may well be that the architecture Green Book will need to be modified. That's
why I'd like to hold to the process indicated below and issue the Green Book
[1] + [2-6] + [8-11] + [15-16] for an integrated CESG review.

By the way, the SOIS Green Book and the Cislunar Green Book are both "Type-2"
in Jean-Luc's terminology, and they both suffer from the same problem: they
have a strong flight system architectural flavor, yet we really don't have an
external flight system community to whom we can go to confirm that they are
acceptable. The IOAG, for instance, really doesn't contain much flight system
representation.

Best regards
Adrian

      ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
      1.  SOIS Architecture draft Green Book: to Gannett by 16 February
      2.  QOS draft Green Book: no schedule provided

      3.  Device Access Service draft Red Book: being edited by Gannett
      4.  Time Access Service draft Red Book: being edited by Gannett
      5.  Device Data Pooling Service draft Red Book: in WG review; to
      Gannett by
          01 March
      6.  File Service draft Red Book: in WG review; to Gannett by 01 March

      8.  Forward Packet Service draft Red Book: to Gannett by 16 February
      9.  Test Service draft Red Book: to Gannett by 16 February
      10. Memory Access Service draft Red Book: to Gannett by 16 February
      11. Time Distribution Service draft Red Book: to Gannett by 16 February

      15. Draft Charter for Subnetworking Services WG: needs update to
      reflect
          proposed schedule
      16. Draft Charter for Application Support Services WG: needs update to
          reflect proposed schedule

      ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

      Here's what I propose:

      1. Chris needs to set a schedule for getting the QOS draft Green Book
      to Tom
         Gannett.
      2. Tom needs to set the Magic Date ("MD") when he will have a complete
         package of Books edited and ready for review, i.e., [1-6] and
      [8-11].
      3. Prior to MD, Chris needs to update charters 15-16 and get them to
      Neil
         Dissinger.
      4. On MD, Neil will release a complete package for CESG review:
         [1-6] and [8-11] and [15-16].
      5. The CESG will have 30 days after MD to review and RID the whole
      package.
      6. At MD+31 we will then assess where we are.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++