[CMC Alert] SANA discussion

Wed Aug 29 08:35:15 UTC 2018

Bonjour

I believe the next teleconference will be useful to clarify the actions on the SANA registries.

My understanding is that the AR’s do not have rights to update all registries but just the enterprise registries which fall under their responsibilities (ref. slide 9 of Peter’s presentation at mid-term).

For me, the resolutions formulated by the CESG show what needs to be done: 1) check the newly imported data.  2) And for that AR’s must be nominated.

The reason why this was not triggered by the CMC is just that the CMC wants to understand beforehand:

-        If the newly created registries are justified and what is the amount of additional work for the SANA operator, with the new registries

-        What is the process to approve the registries and why the CMC is not in the decision loop

-        Which data needs be reviewed by the ARs and the associated amount of work

In my opinion, the first question addresses the most recent registries among the 45 (I have no doubt on the dozens of pre-existing registries) ; the second question concerns the 45 + 16 registries.
My main concern is the third question, first because it is not clear which registries and data are under the AR’s and second because the process / procedure to update is not clear either (on line, email interface to the SANA operator,…). In summary, what are the imported data and how to update it (contrary to the SCId registry, there is no friendly user interface to manage the other registries). On the latter, a demo during the next webex would help.

Last, I am hopeful that the SCId data base doesn’t need be reviewed by the AR’s as this has been under the SANA operator since the web interface was created and the transfer to the new OIDs context must have been fully mastered and under control.

This is just an opinion, no need to answer, and I agree with Osvaldo: Let’s see what happens in the next round in September… if a date may be found.

Best regards

Jean-Marc Soula
CNES – DNO/SA/DA
Deputy Head of Stations networks and Alert systems Department
18 Avenue Edouard Belin
31401 Toulouse Cedex 9 - France
Tel.: +33 (0)5 61 2 74647
Fax.: +33 (0)5 61 2 73993
Email: jean-marc.soula at cnes.fr<mailto:jean-marc.soula at cnes.fr>
www.cnes.fr<http://www.cnes.fr>

De : CMC-EXEC <cmc-exec-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> De la part de osvaldo.peinado at dlr.de
Envoyé : mardi 28 août 2018 15:35
À : Wallace.S.Tai at jpl.nasa.gov; CMC-exec at mailman.ccsds.org
Objet : Re: [CMC Alert] SANA discussion

Thank you Wallace
I think the AR need to do an update, not only review, for the 45 approved SANA Registries (all, not only the names imported from CWE)
I do not agree to do a review, send E-mails with the mistakes to the SANA operator and then review again if everything is ok.
Non AR have the time to do the work twice or more times (for example my own name is wrong and still not fixed).
Let see what happens in the next round in September
Best Regards
Osvaldo

Von: Tai, Wallace S (9000) [mailto:Wallace.S.Tai at jpl.nasa.gov]
Gesendet: Montag, 27. August 2018 19:36
An: Peinado, Osvaldo Luis; CMC-exec at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:CMC-exec at mailman.ccsds.org>
Betreff: Re: [CMC Alert] SANA discussion

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<mailto:cmc-exec-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>> on behalf of "osvaldo.peinado at dlr.de<mailto:osvaldo.peinado at dlr.de>" <osvaldo.peinado at dlr.de<mailto:osvaldo.peinado at dlr.de>>
Date: Friday, August 24, 2018 at 2:47 AM
To: "CMC-exec at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:CMC-exec at mailman.ccsds.org>" <CMC-exec at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto: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/20180829/8cf79f1a/attachment.html>