Hello Holger,
I have completed my review of the FF-CSTS book. It is quite an impressive document! Especially so, considering that it was developed quite quickly. I think the document is in quite good shape but I think there is some relatively minor update required before proceeding to polling for agency review – please see the document with my comments in the CWE -- https://cwe.ccsds.org/css/docs/CSS-CSTS/CWE%20Private/Future%20Services%20using%20Toolkit/Forward%20Frame%20CSTS/FF-CSTS-922x3-r-0_11-for_AD_review-comments-eb.doc
I do have one general question -- do you and or the working group think that the FF-CSTS book as currently written, will retire the EFCLTU book (in its entirety)?
I look forward to the responses and any updates with regard to the comments and I think once that is done we can very likely move forward to requesting an agency review.
Best regards,
-Erik
From: Holger.Dreihahn at esa.int <Holger.Dreihahn at esa.int>
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2018 11:37 PM
To: Barkley, Erik J (3970) <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: Colin.Haddow at esa.int; CCSDS_CSTSWG <css-csts at mailman.ccsds.org>; John Pietras <john.pietras at gst.com>; Wolfgang Hell <wo_._he at t-online.de>
Subject: RE: Draft Red FF book on CWE
Hi Erik and John,
I think John summarizes quite nicely the position of the CSTS WG as discussed in Gaithersburg (yes, saves some typing :-). However, since the CSTS SFW should contain soon all changes required for CSTS FF I wanted to talk to Wolfgang, back in July, when he thinks the updates can be done and how close we are to a SFW B-2 ready for AD review and submission to secretariat for Agency Review. As far as I had understood, the current changes to the SFW impact mostly the forward procedures, which justifies the prototyping approach (SFW covered by FF prototyping). For SFW updates impacting return procedures we have to be a little bit careful to
a) not impact TD (as far as we can)
b) avoid the need of prototyping again the SFW return procedures, which is not covered yet by anything
I have (had) the hope that we could reach these two conditions for the SFW and even more, that it would be perhaps possible to go down the route Erik outlines, namely to pass the SFW also for review relatively soon. Clearly we can then prioritize the FF over the SFW.
What I always have in mind is that we must by all means work on the Functional Resources. Currently I believe they are not completed to an extent that allows an MD implementation.
Best regards,
Holger
Holger Dreihahn
European Spacecraft Operations Centre | European Space Agency | S-431
+49 6151 90 2233 | http://www.esa.int/esoc
From: "Barkley, Erik J (3970)" <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>>
To: John Pietras <john.pietras at gst.com<mailto:john.pietras at gst.com>>, "Holger.Dreihahn at esa.int<mailto:Holger.Dreihahn at esa.int>" <Holger.Dreihahn at esa.int<mailto:Holger.Dreihahn at esa.int>>
Cc: CCSDS_CSTSWG <css-csts at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:css-csts at mailman.ccsds.org>>, "Colin.Haddow at esa.int<mailto:Colin.Haddow at esa.int>" <Colin.Haddow at esa.int<mailto:Colin.Haddow at esa.int>>
Date: 19/06/2018 04:04
Subject: RE: Draft Red FF book on CWE
________________________________
John,
Thanks for the inputs, background. I certainly am aware of the priorities that NASA has expressed with regard to FF CSTS. We have TD CSTS which will likely be going forward for blue book publication consideration as soon as the prototyping completes and I would very much not like to have this upset by changes to the framework (probably slim-to-none chance of that as no doubt the FF CSTS supporting changes affect the forward side of the framework only? ). In any case, I still look forward to hearing what Holger has to say – perhaps you have saved him some typing :-)
Best regards,
-Erik
From: John Pietras <john.pietras at gst.com<mailto:john.pietras at gst.com>>
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2018 6:27 PM
To: Barkley, Erik J (3970) <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>>; Holger.Dreihahn at esa.int<mailto:Holger.Dreihahn at esa.int>
Cc: CCSDS_CSTSWG <css-csts at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:css-csts at mailman.ccsds.org>>
Subject: RE: Draft Red FF book on CWE
Erik,
If I can offer some thoughts, I believe that I can address the WG’s position on this. Of course, if I’ve misunderstood something I’m sure that Holger can set the record straight.
First, we did (and do) have the understanding that getting the FF book published is a very high priority, at least for NASA. We are hoping to have the F Red-1 review completed and the RID resolutions determined (that is, know the answers even if they aren’t updated in the book itself) by 31 December, on a path to get a Blue-1 in the summer of 2019. We were concerned that delaying the review of the FF book until both it and the updated SFW can get through the Secretariat editing process and have both of them formally reviewed simultaneously could seriously jeopardize that schedule. We thought maybe you (and maybe Peter) could pull some strings to bump up the priority in the Secretariat’s queue for the FF book, but didn’t want to push our luck with doing that for 2 books. Throw August slowdown in the middle of all of this and you can see our motivation for focusing as narrowly as we could justifiably get away with.
Second, although we are quite confident that the current draft SFW Pink Book addresses the issues raised by the FF book in the procedures most directly associated with the FF services, there may be some residual “echoes” that affect other procedures in the book. Due to our focus on supporting the progression of the FF book, the focus on the SFW draft Pink Book has been primarily on those FF-related procedures. There is also the issue of re-prototyping the other procedures that have been affects, for which the current thinking is that the WG can do some regression testing of the changes with the other CSTSes (MD and TD) that use them.
So the approach that we WG developed in Gaithersburg was as follows:
1. Get the SFW draft Pink Book to a point where it accurately reflects the current thinking, and matches and supports the FF book.
2. Make the SFW *informal draft* Pink Book available *as a review aid* for the FF Red-1 review. Perhaps by posting it to the public folder of the CSTSWG CWE. We could even informally solicit comments on the SFW changes in case anyone wishes to offer them.
3. While the FF Red-1 review is underway (e.g., late summer into fall), work more on the SFW Pink Book, ideally to the point where it could be ready for submission the Secretariat. However, depending on the actual timing of the FF red-1 book review completion and the process of completion of the SFW Pink Book generation, the WG might decide to wait to see if any of the FF review comments are significant enough to ripple back into the SFW itself.
4. Conduct the formal CCSDS review of the SFW Pink Book while the FF book is being updated to Blue-1 (hopefully) or Red-2. In any case, the goal would be to have an approved Blue-2 SFW in the next spring/summer timeframe, ready to support Blue-1 FF if we are fortunate enough to be able to go directly to FF Blue-1.
Peter Shames was in the room with us when we discussed this and he thought it was a good approach.
Holger, have a done a reasonably good job of summarizing our approach?
Best regards,
John
From: CSS-CSTS [mailto:css-csts-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] On Behalf Of Barkley, Erik J (3970)
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2018 8:00 PM
To: Holger.Dreihahn at esa.int<mailto:Holger.Dreihahn at esa.int>
Cc: CCSDS_CSTSWG <css-csts at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:css-csts at mailman.ccsds.org>>
Subject: Re: [Css-csts] Draft Red FF book on CWE
Dear Holger,
Thank you very much for sending the notification and the link to the FF CSTS book. I will endeavor to take a look and get through the review as soon as possible. However, in the meantime, I do have a question as to approaching agency review for this. To me it makes sense, if we can, to run the reviews of the updated SFW (pink sheets) in parallel with those of the FF CSTS book. The rationale being that if a reviewer is being thorough (yes it might happen :-)) it would be good to have both books available. Can you please let me know your thoughts on this?
Best regards,
-Erik
From: Holger.Dreihahn at esa.int<mailto:Holger.Dreihahn at esa.int> <Holger.Dreihahn at esa.int<mailto:Holger.Dreihahn at esa.int>>
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2018 5:21 AM
To: Barkley, Erik J (3970) <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Cc: CCSDS_CSTSWG <css-csts at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:css-csts at mailman.ccsds.org>>
Subject: Fw: Draft Red FF book on CWE
Dear Erik,
Please find below the link to the CSTS FF Red-1 book for your review and approval for submission to secretariat. Below is also a link to the updated CSTS SFW (now a Draft Pink Book). There are some CSTS SFW changes pending, but as said below we believe the CSTS SFW is fine for serving the purpose of reviewing the CSTS FF.
Please let us know your comments and then how to proceed.
Best regards,
Holger
Holger Dreihahn
European Spacecraft Operations Centre | European Space Agency | S-431
+49 6151 90 2233 | http://www.esa.int/esoc
----- Forwarded by Holger Dreihahn/esoc/ESA on 18/06/2018 14:18 -----
From: John Pietras <john.pietras at gst.com<mailto:john.pietras at gst.com>>
To: "Holger.Dreihahn at esa.int<mailto:Holger.Dreihahn at esa.int>" <Holger.Dreihahn at esa.int<mailto:Holger.Dreihahn at esa.int>>, "Pham, Timothy T (3300) (timothy.t.pham at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:timothy.t.pham at jpl.nasa.gov>)" <timothy.t.pham at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:timothy.t.pham at jpl.nasa.gov>>, Wolfgang Hell <wo_._he at t-online.de<mailto:wo_._he at t-online.de>>
Date: 17/06/2018 21:14
Subject: Draft Red FF book on CWE
________________________________
Dear Holger, Tim, and Wolfgang,
I have finished my updates of the FF book, which include the updates from Wolfgang’s review plus those resulting from the discussion that Wolfgang and I had last Monday. I believe that unless you have additional comments, this is ready to send to Erik for his AD review and approval for submission to the Secretariat to request Red-1 review. The draft FF book can be found at URL
https://cwe.ccsds.org/css/docs/CSS-CSTS/CWE%20Private/Future%20Services%20using%20Toolkit/Forward%20Frame%20CSTS/FF-CSTS-r-0_1-180615.zip
Note that there is a difference between the information Annex “Cross References to Cross Support Transfer Service Specification Framework” (Annex L) and the corresponding annexes in the MD and TD book and Guidelines. Section 4.18 of the Guidelines states “The CSTS shall provide in an informative annex a table listing the specific (sub)sections and paragraphs of the CSTS Specification Framework (reference [1]) that are referenced by the new CSTS, and identifies the (sub)sections and paragraphs of this new CSTS that make specific reference to each of those CSTS Specification Framework (sub)sections/paragraphs.” The reason that this annex is to exist is to aid the updating of the CSTS specification if and when the SFW is updated. I had suggested this particular approach. However, I have found that constructing this annex is a time-consuming and error-prone process. For the Forward Frames book I have instead listed the pages of the FF book on which the references exist instead of the (sub)sections of the FF book in which the cross-references appear. This allowed me to use Word’s built-in indexing capability. This produces a much more complete and consistent cross reference annex, and it serves the same purpose as the originally-defined annex. I recommend that we use this approach from now on. If you do not agree that this approach can be used, I can generate the (sub)section-based annex in the coming weeks, but for the purposes of Erik’s review the current form is fine. (Note also that if we take this approach, we don’t necessarily need to change the corresponding annexes MD and TD books because they still meet the intent of the annexes.)
Wolfgang had sent to me his markup of the CSTS SFW, to which I aligned the FF book. In our discussion last Monday, Wolfgang and discovered a few more changes that need to be made to the SFW, which he will make when he returns in July. In the process of finishing the FF book edits, I also discovered a very few more items that need to be updated in the SFW, mostly along the lines of making agreed changes consistent across the DP, BDP, and SCPD procedures. I have documented these needed changes in detail and will send them tomorrow to Wolfgang and copy you. I have also changed the labelling of the draft SFW to that of a Draft Pink Book and uploaded it to the CWE at URL
https://cwe.ccsds.org/css/docs/CSS-CSTS/CWE%20Private/CSTS%20Framework%20and%20Concept/CSTS%20SFW%20Pink%20Book/921x1p1x1%20draft%20180613.doc
Wolfgang and I agreed that for the purposes of Erik’s review the changes that are still to be made to the SFW are in the noise, and so we agree that we can safely point Erik to this draft for whatever cross-referencing he might choose to do.
Best regards,
John
This message is sent for information and/or discussion purposes only.
It shall neither be binding nor construed as constituting a commitment for ESA.
It is intended only for the recipient(s) named above.
It may contain proprietary information and/or protected content.
Any unauthorised disclosure, use, retention or dissemination is prohibited.
If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately.
ESA applies appropriate organisational measures to protect personal data.
In case of data privacy queries, please contact the ESA Data Protection Officer (dpo at esa.int<mailto:dpo at esa.int>).
Thank you.
This message is sent for information and/or discussion purposes only.
It shall neither be binding nor construed as constituting a commitment for ESA.
It is intended only for the recipient(s) named above.
It may contain proprietary information and/or protected content.
Any unauthorised disclosure, use, retention or dissemination is prohibited.
If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately.
ESA applies appropriate organisational measures to protect personal data.
In case of data privacy queries, please contact the ESA Data Protection Officer (dpo at esa.int<mailto:dpo at esa.int>).
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/css-csts/attachments/20180620/0fe580ca/attachment.html>