[CMC] CMC - SANA Registry Action

[Soula Jean-Marc]

Bonjour CMC

And thank you Calvin for sending the file and JAXA for making a detailed analysis of it.

After JAXA comments, I would add the following ones:


-          I agree that contact and organization registries are not technical and could be handled the old way, i.e. via information on the CCSDS web site.
Glossary doesn’t seem very usefull while “terms” and “abbreviations” should be maintained.



-          While I do not understand why the aperture registry has now been subdivided into three registries (links and sites are new and were part of the previous unique aperture registry), I disagree that this should be handed over to SFCG. Site services registry seem to belong to the same category but was not originally populated by IOAG.
In fact, the original aperture registry was not related to any specific CCSDS standard but was replacing an old GB too difficult to maintain. It was the result of an agreement with IOAG to host their registry on the SANA web site, while IOAG had no such capability. The IOAG data was transferred to CCSDS and now needs to be kept current.
In another elder agreement, SFCG had requested IOAG to maintain such registry for them, while this didn’t really happen: the contents were quite different as SFCG needs are spectrum oriented, while IOAG needs were more performance and services oriented, which is closer to CCSDS interests.
The three current asset registries (+ site services) should be merged and maintained on the CCSDS web site.



-          Concerning other registries, I appreciate the effort of JAXA to identify those referring to standards which are no longer in use (“silverized standards” on the CCSDS web site).
I am puzzled with the high number of registries that seem to refer only to these “silverized” standards and I just wonder why the cleaning was not done upfront to raising this action to the CMC. Do the registries survive after the standards are phased out ? is it because they are in use (in flight missions) and for how long should they remain ? Moreover, is the assumption correct that they should not evolve with new entries ?
Nevertheless, most of these registries were managed by the WG Chairs or Area Directors and they should first be confirmed or not at their level first: most of the data in the registries is still “provisional” and as long as it is not verified if the data refer only to silverized documents or if other reference documents are missing, it is difficult to make decisions.
Then the principles applying to registries related to silverized standards should be explained and in particular the need to keep them alive and living. Maybe the notion of “silverized registries” could be invented = still available but closed to new records, with limited (no?) need for maintenance.



-          After the above clarifications on old standards, decisions may be made but more widely, CNES is of the opinion that 1) any registry related to a standard in force should remain on the web site and 2) any registry related to old standards still in use should remain for a term.


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 <cmc-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> De la part de ?? ?
Envoyé : mercredi 10 octobre 2018 11:16
À : Ramos, Calvin T. (HQ-CG000)[Arctic Slope Technical Services, Inc.] <calvin.t.ramos at nasa.gov>; 'cmc at mailman.ccsds.org' <cmc at mailman.ccsds.org>
Cc : 星野　宏和 <hoshino.hirokazu at jaxa.jp>
Objet : Re: [CMC] CMC - SANA Registry Action


Dear Calvin-san and all,



Hereafter, please find the JAXA's findings on the subject of SANA Registry action.

The list below shows the registries which are not mission-focused, not technical, no longer applicable or suitable.



Not mission-focused/Not technical registries:;

ü  Contact Roles

ü  Contacts

ü  Organization Roles

ü  Organizations



No longer applicable/suitable registries;



(Referenced documents are historical)

ü  Frame Secondary Header Version Number

ü  Packet Version Number

ü  Proximity-1 Port Identifier

ü  Space Link Identifiers Registries

ü  Space Packet Protocol Application Process Identifier (APID)

ü  Transfer Frame Version Number (TFVN)



(Can be substituted by other database such as SFCG database)

ü  Apertures

ü  Apertures Links

ü  Service Sites and Apertures



The following registries have references to historical documents. Those references should be removed.

ü  SCPS-NP Domain Identifier (D-ID)

ü  SCPS-NP End System Identifier (ES-ID)

ü  SCPS-NP Path Identifier (P-ID)

ü  SCPS-NP Transport Protocol Identifier (TP-ID)

ü  SCPS-TP Connection Identifier

ü  SCPS-TP Extended Capability Binding Space Identifiers

ü  CCSDS File Delivery Protocol (CFDP) Entity Identifier

ü  CLCW Version Number

ü  Extended Protocol Identifier for Encapsulation Service

ü  Internet Protocol Extension Header

ü  Multiplexer Access Point Identifier (MAP ID)

ü  Protocol Identifier for Encapsulation Service

ü  Virtual Channel Identifier (VCID)



We will shortly vote on e-poll of CMC-P-2018 05-001~005.



Best Regards….Shigeta





-----Original Message-----
From: CMC <cmc-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cmc-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>> On Behalf Of Ramos, Calvin T. (HQ-CG000)[Arctic Slope Technical Services, Inc.]
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2018 12:55 AM
To: 'cmc at mailman.ccsds.org' <cmc at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cmc at mailman.ccsds.org>>
Subject: [CMC] CMC - SANA Registry Action



Dear CMC Members,



Since navigating through the SANA website can be challenging, I’ve attached a table with summaries of the approved SANA registries that will hopefully be of value in addressing the action from the last telecon - to determine which items on the list are mission focused technical registries (and which are not).  As a reminder, the action to send in your votes is this Friday, October 5th.  Let me know if you have any questions.



Regards,



Calvin



Calvin T. Ramos

CCSDS Secretariat

W: 571.262.6272   M: 571.386.7378

calvin.t.ramos at nasa.gov<mailto:michael.blackwood at asrcfederal.com<mailto:calvin.t.ramos at nasa.gov%3cmailto:michael.blackwood at asrcfederal.com>>

7515 Mission Drive, Seabrook, MD 20706

ASRC Federal | Customer-Focused. Operationally Excellent.




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cmc/attachments/20181011/eb34f1ff/attachment.html>