[CMC Alert] SANA discussion

[Tai, Wallace S (9000)]

All,

I hesitated to join the fray about SANA during the various long discussions taking place recently since, from the CESG perspective, Margherita already stated the SANA use cases clearly. I understand there are still issues to be resolved by the CMC.

After reading Osvaldo’s assessment, I agree with him that the SANA functions are working well. I further agree that there are a few deficiencies in the current SANA data base.

However, we have to recognize that there is "clean-up" work on the Spacecraft registry contents that can only be done by each Agency's AR.  This in fact was the subject of the following SEA resolution:

SEA-R-2018-04-05              Require that each Agency Representative (AR) shall be asked to review the newly imported Mission / Spacecraft from the CCSDS Website and identify overlapping, aliased, missing, and/or retired entries.

And that resolution requires that each Agency HoD assign an AR (or take on that role themselves), which was another SEA resolution:

SEA-R-2018-04-04              Request that each CCSDS Agency and Observer ensure that they have at least one authorized Agency Representative (AR) for managing Agency information in the SANA, and that this information is updated.

Both of these resolutions are part of the set of seven (7) that the CMC has seen fit to put on hold.

Regards,

Wallace

From: CMC-EXEC <cmc-exec-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> on behalf of "osvaldo.peinado at dlr.de" <osvaldo.peinado at dlr.de>
Date: Friday, August 24, 2018 at 2:47 AM
To: "CMC-exec at mailman.ccsds.org" <CMC-exec at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: [CMC Alert] SANA discussion

Dear all
After the very long discussion about SANA, I was checking some of the points that we talk about
There are 45 approved registries and in my opinion that are the ones that need to be checked (agency representative), not only the names from CWE
And there are 16 candidates, may be for the next CMC to be discussed?
Some of them like the Spacecraft, looks to me more important than other already approved. And the funny thing here is that the content it is approved!
Kind of confusing situation here.
On the approved ones, for example Apertures, the antennas are provisional, this register was originated by IOAG but in most of them there is no country mentioned and a lot for information is missing (for example in the KSAT Antennas that are listed).
Similar situation is in the aperture links, the register is approved, but all the content is still provisional.
Same is transport services.
DTN looks good.
CCSDS Abbreviations are all provisional, although the references to the corresponding books are correct.
CFDP is status unmanaged, what that means?
Than we have the glossary that only makes a reference to Terms and Abbreviations.
By the terms is the same situation as Abbreviations, do we need to check all of them to make them approved?
I can follow on, for each of the 45 approved Registries (without approved content) till we arrive to the Contacts
Here we have the long discussion, and here in my opinion should be simply imported from CWE, not to have the information in both places
I think we will need to have a long telecom again for clarify all these points and what is meaningful to have in SANA; not to justify SANA; but review and decided about the content
Have a nice weekend
Osvaldo
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Osvaldo Peinado
Ground Operations Manager
German Space Operation Center (GSOC)
DLR (German Aeropspace Agency)
Phone: +49 8153 283010
Mobile: +49 172 9410099
Muenchenerstr. 20
82234 Wessling
Germany

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cmc-exec/attachments/20180827/1ae5658f/attachment.html>