[Css-csts] [EXTERNAL] FW: AD review of SC-CSTS
Barkley, Erik J (US 3970)
erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov
Wed Dec 3 20:36:45 EST 2025
Hello Jason & Alexander,
I have finally gotten around to processing the responses to the comments (for others on this email, we on the NASA side were directed to stop work on CCSDS for about 6 weeks due to US Government shutdown).
I have converted the comments below into a spreadsheet which is attached to help better track resolution for the comments. Mostly the updates are OK, but there are few items I think we still need to address. I think the biggest issue, which really is not so big, is that, in order to get to an agency review in a timely manner, we should restore the reference to the Cross Support Reference Model but make the reference be to the historical document (for which I have included the proper document number in the spreadsheet). I think the other items, if you agree, are straightforward to address. Can you please let me know what you think?
Thank you and best regards,
-Erik
Ps, Jason, since you indicated having CWE login issues I have taken the liberty of uploading the updated document you produced to the CWE – it is available here: 922x4-W-0.8c.doc<https://spacecomm.sharepoint.com/:w:/r/sites/CSS/Shared%20Documents/CSS-CSTS/CWE%20Private/CSTS-SC/B1/922x4-W-0.8c.doc?d=wd06ab75b86204884bdc352bb9e832cb9&csf=1&web=1&e=1dTamo>
From: Liao, Jason C (US 333F) <jason.c.liao at jpl.nasa.gov>
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2025 17:07
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] FW: AD review of SC-CSTS
Erik & Alexander,
I have attempt to upload the updated SC-CSTS file but I don’t have the permission to write to sharepoint. Attached is the response & updated SC-CSTS book
-Jason
Response to Erik’s comment: (blue need additional feedback)
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. (updated link to reference 1)
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) (agreed and updated)
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. ( need discussion)
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? ( need discussion)
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? ( Agreed, changed to: This Recommended Standard is applicable to the implementation of real systems that monitor and control of space communication Cross Support Services for the purposes of generating cyclic status reports, generating notifications of changes in status in real time, responding to queries of current values of operational parameters, and making configuration changes to operational parameters)
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?) (agreed, changed to: status information and service control configuration)
7. Pg 1-3, from "…no further specification of the MD-CSTS…" to "… No further specification of the SC CSTS…" (agreed and updated to SC-CSTS)
8. Pg 1-3 from "… a procedure (Throw Event) is adopted…" TO "… a procedure (Throw Event) that is adopted…" (agreed and updated)
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. ( agreed, removed item f)
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. (agreed, will updated)
11. Pg 1-10, 1.7 -- the Cross Support Reference Model -- Part 1 has been retired. Suggest removing this from the list of references (agreed, removed)
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. (agreed, replaced 38 instances)
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) (agreed, and replace 2 instances)
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…" ( agreed, will need work)
15. Pg 2-11 2.2.1 FROM "duri TO "during" (agree , updated)
16. Pg 2-12 2.2.2 FROM "…required functionality," TO "… required functionality." ( need clarification on comment)
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. (agreed)
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 (agreed)
On Jul 16, 2025, at 5:45 PM, Barkley, Erik J (US 3970) via CSS-CSTS <css-csts at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:css-csts at mailman.ccsds.org>> wrote:
CSTS Colleagues,
I meant to include the WG for this message.
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!Pqw2t8viDPHwFmKN3kcec6nPcqvQDVRUZ7SRot8Y5kfb0IhywjAbq5XTgOLJESOxCWEOzyQeqSBWyjAOHhjQRlXg2A$>
---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!Pqw2t8viDPHwFmKN3kcec6nPcqvQDVRUZ7SRot8Y5kfb0IhywjAbq5XTgOLJESOxCWEOzyQeqSBWyjAOHhg-OeLf8g$>
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!Pqw2t8viDPHwFmKN3kcec6nPcqvQDVRUZ7SRot8Y5kfb0IhywjAbq5XTgOLJESOxCWEOzyQeqSBWyjAOHhgOzVU8KQ$>
_______________________________________________
CSS-CSTS mailing list
CSS-CSTS at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:CSS-CSTS at mailman.ccsds.org>
https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/css-csts__;!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!Pqw2t8viDPHwFmKN3kcec6nPcqvQDVRUZ7SRot8Y5kfb0IhywjAbq5XTgOLJESOxCWEOzyQeqSBWyjAOHhikFwpyRw$<https://urldefense.us/v3/__https:/mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/css-csts__;!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!Pqw2t8viDPHwFmKN3kcec6nPcqvQDVRUZ7SRot8Y5kfb0IhywjAbq5XTgOLJESOxCWEOzyQeqSBWyjAOHhikFwpyRw$>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/css-csts/attachments/20251204/13e82761/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 251203-SC-CSTS-AD-Review.xlsx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet
Size: 23153 bytes
Desc: 251203-SC-CSTS-AD-Review.xlsx
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/css-csts/attachments/20251204/13e82761/attachment-0001.xlsx>
More information about the CSS-CSTS
mailing list