[Css-csts] RE : Proposed agenda items for intermediate CSS Plenary

[Lapaian Gerard]

Hello erik,

It's look good for me.
The intermediate plenary is done to rise this cross wg subject.

Bonne journée



Gerard LAPAIAN
Advisor
DSI/EP
Directorate of Information System
CENTRE NATIONAL D'ETUDES SPATIALES
Tel:(33)561273634
Sec:(33)561274311
Fax:(33)561283123


-----Message d'origine-----
De : Erik Barkley [mailto:Erik.Barkley at jpl.nasa.gov] 
Envoyé : mercredi 24 août 2005 21:53
À : Gerard Lapian; Yves Doat
Cc : CCSDS Service Mgmt WG; CCSDS CSTS-WG; Peter Shames; Charles Ruggier
Objet : Proposed agenda items for intermediate CSS Plenary


Dear Gerard, Yves,

I would like to propose an agenda item for the intermediate plenary CSS 
meeting in Atlanta on Wednesday, September 14. Namely, coordination between 
the emerging monitor service (which is a utilization of the generic 
transfer service currently being developed under CSTS working group) and 
its aspects that relate to overall service management.  For example:

1) Is the monitoring service required to guarantee that all monitor data 
updates are provided to the service user? If not, is there something in the 
service agreement that indicates the percentage of monitor data updates 
guaranteed to be returned? Should this be flexible on a per contact/service 
instance basis?

2) The service packages in the emerging service management specification 
allow for a user to indicate an event sequence for such situations as an 
orbiter being occulted by a planetary body, or changes in modulation index, 
symbol rates, etc..  Should the  monitoring service report that these 
events have successfully occurred (as determined by the service provider) 
or is it simply to be inferred  by changes in the monitor data (by the 
service user)?  If pursuing the former approach, then would it be a good 
idea to provide event identifiers from service management to the monitoring 
service?

3) Does the monitoring service provide indication of parameters/values that 
have gone out of range or are approaching agreed-upon thresholds?  If so, 
are the agreed-upon thresholds "absolute" or specified via a service 
agreement and provided from service management to the monitoring service?

4) The emerging service management specification includes identifiers for 
each service package, each scenario of a service package, and each service 
instance within a particular scenario.  Presumably the monitoring service 
will make use of these identifiers?

 From the above examples, I believe you can gain a sense of the types of 
issues that I see needing coordination between Service Management and Cross 
Support Transfer Services working groups.  If we could arrange for some 
time to discuss these types of issues at the intermediate plenary I believe 
it would be to everyone's benefit.  I believe this also represents (a 
small) part of the overall set of discussions leading to a definition of a 
Cross Support Services Architecture in general.

Best regards,

-Erik.