[Css-csts] [EXTERNAL] AD review of SC-CSTS

Wed Aug 27 19:53:06 EDT 2025

Thanks Jason and Alexander for the replies.  Presumably all the remote attendees are registering to indicate that they are attending remotely.  From a CESG coordination meeting earlier today it was noted that the university that will be hosting the meetings has a limited number of OWL (teleconference) type devices.

Looking forward to getting the comments resolved.

-Erik

From: Liao, Jason C (US 333F) <jason.c.liao at jpl.nasa.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2025 15:22
To: Barkley, Erik J (US 3970) <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>; Alexander.Kalkhof at dlr.de
Cc: css-csts at mailman.ccsds.org
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [Css-csts] AD review of SC-CSTS

Erik, my apologies, I will address your comment and upload them to CWE.   Hopefully we all can review them at the Fall meeting.

Since this year  will have smaller in-person atteace, we’ll have to rely upon remote meeting heavily this year.

-Jason

On Aug 27, 2025, at 4:56 AM, Alexander Kalkhof via CSS-CSTS <css-csts at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:css-csts at mailman.ccsds.org>> wrote:

Hello Erik,

thanks a lot for your comments. Unfortunately we had no opportunity yet to go through the list.

My idea was to review your comments at the Fall meeting. I will schedule this at the beginning having a dedicated time slot for this topic. So we will have a time buffer if some questions will raise. Jason or Myself can start with some corrections, but there are some points, which must be discussed in the group.

After our review session we can hopefully to get this into polling.

Best regards

Alexander

________________________________

From: Barkley, Erik J (US 3970) <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2025 5:48 PM
To: Kalkhof, Alexander; Liao, Jason C (US 333F)
Cc: Holger Dreihahn; css-csts at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:css-csts at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: RE: AD review of SC-CSTS

HI Jason, Alexander,

I might have missed it or maybe there was an email server glitch, but I have not received any reply to the review comments.  If we can, it would be nice to get this into polling by the time of the fall meetings – unless you think my comments raised issues sufficient for discussion at the fall meetings.  When you have a chance, please let me know your replies on the review comments.

Best regards,

-Erik

From: Barkley, Erik J (US 3970)
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 16:16
To: Alexander.Kalkhof at dlr.de<mailto:Alexander.Kalkhof at dlr.de>; Liao, Jason C (US 333F) <jason.c.liao at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:jason.c.liao at jpl.nasa.gov>>; Holger Dreihahn <holger.dreihahn at esa.int<mailto:holger.dreihahn at esa.int>>
Subject: AD review of SC-CSTS

Jason,

Thanks for sending the link.

All,

I have completed my review of the recommendation. I do see some items that I think we need to address.  I started out keeping something that looks like a CCSDS RID list, but then it got to be too cumbersome and started commenting and doing some minor edits in the document directly. The document is attached. I decided to save this in .docx format as we no longer have the .doc restriction given the new technical editor staff.  The RID type list is immediately below.  I do not see any CSTS WG teleconferences scheduled between now and the fall meetings but perhaps it would be good to have some sort of teleconference just to go over this and get a plan for updating the document such that the update could be ready by the time of the fall meetings. What do you think?

Best regards,

-Erik

Ps, in the future, given we can now directly edit in sharepoint, etc., I suspect this kind of review might be better done just by marking up the document directly.  I took the liberty of also uploading the review version to sharepoint at the URL supplied by Jason:  https://spacecomm.sharepoint.com/sites/CSS/Shared%20Documents/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=%2Fsites%2FCSS%2FShared%20Documents%2FCSS%2DCSTS%2FCWE%20Private%2FCSTS%2DSC%2FB1&FolderCTID=0x01200016AEFAC54964424C9CD979137E2A1E8A&View=%7B2BE46707%2D54B3%2D4558%2DB9B5%2D1A581FDDD2F7%7D<https://urldefense.us/v3/__https:/spacecomm.sharepoint.com/sites/CSS/Shared*20Documents/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=*2Fsites*2FCSS*2FShared*20Documents*2FCSS*2DCSTS*2FCWE*20Private*2FCSTS*2DSC*2FB1&FolderCTID=0x01200016AEFAC54964424C9CD979137E2A1E8A&View=*7B2BE46707*2D54B3*2D4558*2DB9B5*2D1A581FDDD2F7*7D__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUl!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!JYHFAnZJH0syEwRjRJ17DMik90Bs8nV0-IG0cDlU4JCAWuYN5wUi3BGgWWgJS-pZnsVMI2SMPP5S7tFeui2ZMebvow$>

---RID type list---

  1.  Pg 1-1, paragraph 1.1 ends with "…by means of the SC-CSTS are identified in 0."  I suspect this is supposed to be a forward reference to a paragraph in the recommendation? Please provide the proper reference.
  2.  Page 1-1, 1.2.1, from "…that constitute the service: and…"  TO "…that constitute the service; and…"  (to be more precise it is change the colon after service to a semi-colon -- Rationale: proper style)
  3.  Pg 1-1, 1.2.1 point c) reads "c)        the requirements on Service Control service to enable the proper operation of the SC-CSTS".    "Service Control service" and SC-CSTS are in fact the same thing, right?  Why not just say requirements for proper operation?  Is there a reference to "the requirements"  If not, maybe these should be some re-phrased?  Perhaps something like taking operational needs into account. And perhaps this could reference section 2.5
  4.  Pg 1-2, point f) says "f)        the specific parameters and events that are to be notified by the SC-CSTS".  That is fine, but should there be some reference to parameters being defined in the FRM?
  5.  Page 1-2, 1.3 -- should the applicability also include requesting of changes to the functions/configuration of a tracking pass during its execution? As written it just talks about monitoring.  Copy and paste from MD-CSTS?
  6.  Pg 1-2, 1.4 -- the rationale only talks about exchange of status -- more copy and paste from MD-CSTS?  (it is about requesting changes -- ie., service control, right?)
  7.  Pg 1-3, from "…no further specification of the MD-CSTS…" to "… No further specification of the SC CSTS…"
  8.  Pg 1-3 from "… a procedure (Throw Event) is adopted…" TO "… a procedure (Throw Event) that is adopted…"
  9.  Pg 1-5 item f) this calls out the cross support reference model – part 1,  but in fact this is a retired CCSDS book. Suggest removing this as a source of documentation.
  10. Pg 1-6 section 1.6.1.2  I think we have a bit of a problem here. This is taking terms from the cross support reference model document which has been retired. I suppose we can refer to historical documents but at a minimum then we need to change what the formal definition of reference 2 is.  Alternatively perhaps the terminology should be updated to reflect the terminology used in the cross support  architecture  books.
  11. Pg 1-10, 1.7 -- the Cross Support Reference Model -- Part 1  has been retired. Suggest removing this from the list of references
  12. Pg 2-11 the section is titled "OVERVIEW OF THE SERVICE CONTROL CROSS SUPPORT TRANSFER SERVICE".  Earlier in the recommendation there is discussion of the Service Control Service.   Suggest adopting consistent nomenclature when referring to service control service versus service control Cross support transfer service, etc. Technically, I think that service control Cross support transfer service is probably more correct.
  13. Page 2-11, 2.1 -- perhaps execution would be more to the point versus utilization when talking about the service capabilities (for example, during the execution phase of the cross support service package versus during the utilization phase of cross support service package)
  14. Pag 2-11, 2.2.1 the cross support reference model has been retired so there is probably some local explanation needed or reference to something else? ( In reference to "As defined in the Cross Support Reference Model…"
  15. Pg 2-11 2.2.1 FROM "duri TO "during"
  16. Pg 2-12 2.2.2 FROM "…required functionality," TO "… required functionality."
  17. Pp 2-13, 2-14 -- just a comment for now -- the 7 or so paragraphs are at least a bit "flowery" -- more verbose than needed, at least from my perspective.   I think we can let this go out for agency review and see if we get any comments on this text.
  18. Pg 2-15, 2.2.3 -- just a comment –  this section 2 is also  "flowery"   I think we will need to look into revision of the text at some point

From: Liao, Jason C (US 333F) <jason.c.liao at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:jason.c.liao at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2025 06:27
To: Barkley, Erik J (US 3970) <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Cc: Alexander.Kalkhof at dlr.de<mailto:Alexander.Kalkhof at dlr.de>
Subject: Fwd: SC-CSTS URL

Erik the SC-CSTS document &  graphic zip package is in the links below. -Jason

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Liao, Jason C (US 333F)" <jason.c.liao at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:jason.c.liao at jpl.nasa.gov>>

Subject: SC-CSTS URL

Date: June 5, 2025 at 3:49:27 PM EDT

To: "css-csts at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:css-csts at mailman.ccsds.org>" <css-csts at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:css-csts at mailman.ccsds.org>>

Cc: "Pham, Timothy T (US 3300)" <timothy.t.pham at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:timothy.t.pham at jpl.nasa.gov>>, Holger Dreihahn <Holger.Dreihahn at esa.int<mailto:Holger.Dreihahn at esa.int>>, "Alexander.Kalkhof at dlr.de<mailto:Alexander.Kalkhof at dlr.de>" <Alexander.Kalkhof at dlr.de<mailto:Alexander.Kalkhof at dlr.de>>

Below are the link to the currrent version of CSTS-SC B1 in CCSDS CWE:

https://spacecomm.sharepoint.com/:w:/r/sites/CSS/Shared%20Documents/CSS-CSTS/CWE%20Private/CSTS-SC/B1/922x4-W-0.8b-HD.doc?d=w1ee2c3f603834ddf84990216e4522d07&csf=1&web=1<https://urldefense.us/v3/__https:/spacecomm.sharepoint.com/:w:/r/sites/CSS/Shared*20Documents/CSS-CSTS/CWE*20Private/CSTS-SC/B1/922x4-W-0.8b-HD.doc?d=w1ee2c3f603834ddf84990216e4522d07&csf=1&web=1__;JSU!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!JYHFAnZJH0syEwRjRJ17DMik90Bs8nV0-IG0cDlU4JCAWuYN5wUi3BGgWWgJS-pZnsVMI2SMPP5S7tFeui0tahX7GA$>

This is the zip package including powerpoint:

https://spacecomm.sharepoint.com/:u:/r/sites/CSS/Shared%20Documents/CSS-CSTS/CWE%20Private/CSTS-SC/B1/922x4-W-0.8b-HD+ppt.zip?csf=1&web=1<https://urldefense.us/v3/__https:/spacecomm.sharepoint.com/:u:/r/sites/CSS/Shared*20Documents/CSS-CSTS/CWE*20Private/CSTS-SC/B1/922x4-W-0.8b-HD*ppt.zip?csf=1&web=1__;JSUr!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!JYHFAnZJH0syEwRjRJ17DMik90Bs8nV0-IG0cDlU4JCAWuYN5wUi3BGgWWgJS-pZnsVMI2SMPP5S7tFeui3iMlKQDw$>

_______________________________________________
CSS-CSTS mailing list
CSS-CSTS at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:CSS-CSTS at mailman.ccsds.org>
https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/css-csts__;!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!JYHFAnZJH0syEwRjRJ17DMik90Bs8nV0-IG0cDlU4JCAWuYN5wUi3BGgWWgJS-pZnsVMI2SMPP5S7tFeui3KZ_YTcg$<https://urldefense.us/v3/__https:/mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/css-csts__;!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!JYHFAnZJH0syEwRjRJ17DMik90Bs8nV0-IG0cDlU4JCAWuYN5wUi3BGgWWgJS-pZnsVMI2SMPP5S7tFeui3KZ_YTcg$>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/css-csts/attachments/20250827/8799427f/attachment-0001.htm>