[Css-rasg] RE: d0-SM&C-OverlapSolutions-05-Sep-2010.xls
Barkley, Erik J (317H)
erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov
Wed Sep 15 23:40:45 EDT 2010
Dear Mario,
Thank you very much for the comments and inputs. I would like to propose a teleconference for next week with a proposed agenda of going over the spreadsheet, an update re any progress with respect to the ExoMars architecture, perhaps arranging a joint session or two at the London meetings, and one or two subsequent teleconferences before the London.
It appears that Peter would be available Tuesday and Wednesday of next week and for me Wednesday would be the preferred date if possible. I could also support a teleconference on Tuesday if that works better for you. The proposed time would be 07:30 Los Angeles/16:30 Darmstadt. I will send a tentative meeting proposal via separate e-mail just to help place a reminder of the calendar. Once we have the date and time confirmed I will make the teleconference arrangements.
Best regards,
-Erik
From: Mario.Merri at esa.int [mailto:Mario.Merri at esa.int]
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 11:49 PM
To: Barkley, Erik J (317H)
Cc: 'Colin.Haddow at esa.int'; CCSDS RA SIG; Nestor.Peccia at esa.int; Shames, Peter M (313B); roger.thompson at scisys.co.uk; Sam.Cooper at scisys.co.uk
Subject: Re: d0-SM&C-OverlapSolutions-05-Sep-2010.xls
Dear Erik,
please find attached the first cut reply to your points as requested. As you recommended, the next step should probably be a telecon.
Ciao
__Mario
From:
"Barkley, Erik J (317H)" <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>
To:
"Mario.Merri at esa.int" <Mario.Merri at esa.int>
Cc:
CCSDS RA SIG <CSS-RASG at mailman.ccsds.org>, "Nestor.Peccia at esa.int" <Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>, "Shames, Peter M (313B)" <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>, "'Colin.Haddow at esa.int'" <Colin.Haddow at esa.int>
Date:
07/09/2010 02:33
Subject:
d0-SM&C-OverlapSolutions-05-Sep-2010.xls
________________________________
Dear Mario,
The CMC has recently approved the minutes from the June meeting (see email below). To the best of my knowledge this essentially means that the resolutions are official. I do not see anything in the minutes that revises the resolution affecting RASIG and SM+C (a copy of that resolution is immediately below).
Accordingly, in response to the top priority listed in the CMC resolution ("....as the top priority, the CMC resolves that the RA-SIG should first start with the analysis previously generated by the SEA AD. They should focus on reaching agreement on that set of specific issues, and provide recommendations to resolve issues where CCSDS working groups are working on overlapping solutions and/or are conflicting with each other..."), please find attached an initial draft spreadsheet with some proposed actions relative to the SEA AD recommendations (the source of those recommendations - Peter's presentation from last year is also attached for your reference). My sincere hope is that we can use this spreadsheet to begin forging a better CCSDS-wide understanding of the various recommendations fit together. I am very interested in learning what your comments, etc maybe with regard to the proposed actions.
I will be out of the office the remainder of the week but if you would like to have a teleconference later this month I would be interested in doing the same.
Best regards,
-Erik
---CMC resolution re RASIG, SM+C, etc---
CMC-A-2010-06-Resolution 2:
The CMC commends the RA-SIG for the significant accomplishments and progress that has been made since its formation at the Fall 2009 CMC meeting. While the current approach has the clear potential to produce a comprehensive solution if sufficient resources are applied, the CMC is concerned that the proposed scope of work is too broad for the currently available resources and consequently the work plan needs to be narrowed in order to be achievable within a realistic resource envelope.
Accordingly, and as the top priority, the CMC resolves that the RA-SIG should first start with the analysis previously generated by the SEA AD. They should focus on reaching agreement on that set of specific issues, and provide recommendations to resolve issues where CCSDS working groups are working on overlapping solutions and/or are conflicting with each other.
As a second priority the RA-SIG should concurrently develop a basic CCSDS reference architecture for mission operations, but they should limit that work to focus on the application service architecture (i.e., applications above the network layer).
Specifically, to proceed on both priorities, the CMC resolves that the RA-SIG group should:
1. Ignore the data communications aspects; assume that we have at least a Network layer platform for transfer of data among the ground elements (TCP-UDP/IP) and between the ground elements and the spacecraft (BP, IP).
2. Assume that we may have several messaging protocols for transfer of data among the ground elements and that AMS is used between the ground elements and the spacecraft
3. Focus on the architecture and organization of CCSDS Mission Operations applications that run on the Messaging/Network layer platform.
4. Start with the SM&C MO architecture. Modify it as necessary to reach consensus on an agreed taxonomy of CCSDS mission operations applications that need to interoperate. Achieve this by integrating RA-SIG and SM&C architecture personnel as necessary to reach a consensus.
5. Not delay the processing or approval of CCSDS books that have almost completed processing, but it is OK to delay CCSDS books that are in relatively early stages.
6. Apply the resulting candidate mission operations application interoperability architecture to a well-known use case, e.g., cooperative ESA/NASA Mars missions in 2016 and 2018, to discover its robustness.
7. Report the results at the Fall 2010 meeting.
The CMC recognizes that some of the overlap issues will require more time than 6 months. But by the Fall 2010 meeting, the group should show significant progress, including solid technical consensus on resolving many of the overlap issues.
---official CMC minutes approval email---
From: cesg-all-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org [mailto:cesg-all-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] On Behalf Of CCSDS Secretariat
Sent: Friday, September 03, 2010 12:14 PM
To: CMC at mailman.ccsds.org
Cc: cesg-all at mailman.ccsds.org
Subject: [Cesg-all] Results of CMC Polls Closing 31 August-2 September 2010
CMC E-Poll Identifier: CMC-P-2010-08-005 Authorization to approve
the draft minutes from the June 2010 CMC meeting in Brazil
Results of CMC poll beginning 18 August 2010 and ending 31 August 2010:
ADOPT: 5 (83.33%) (DLR, ESA, FSA, JAXA, NASA)
ADOPT PROVISIONALLY: 1 (16.67%) (CNES)
REJECT: 0 (0%)
REJECT WITH COMMENTS: 0 (0%)
CNES: Comments:
- Title on first page should remind the dates of the meetings.
- Section 4 (actions) : the status of the actions should refer to
their respective action number and title.
- Section 10 (IOAG) :
* First sentence is not clear : reference to SFCG must be wrong ;
text "similar to CCSDS" should be deleted.
* Fourth sentence "need to discuss how to work ... BOF" is not clear
and should be deleted or clarified.
- Section 11 (Area reports) :
* for each area, thank you to add the names of the presenter.
* fifth bullet (pink sheets on TC frame repeat) : sentence should be
reworded as the CESG cannot request that the CMC issues a blue book
and pink sheets should go to agency review (if significant) or the
epoll (if editorial).
* SIS area report : typo on Space (not Safe) packet protocol.
* SE report (first sentence) : replace "CMC appoint at least two
other members" with "CMC appoints two non-US members".
- Section 12 (SANA) : in first sentence replace "other agencies" with
"non-US agencies".
- Section 14 (IOAG) : typo on Mr Hooke's name ; The second paragraph
should start with "The CMC resolved".
- Section 18 (Publication) : add the following as last but one paragraphs:
"Mr Moury indicated more editorial comments will be provided.
The secretariat was tasked to update th yellow book accordingly with
the results of discussions."
- Action item table : the line with "action items from the june 2010
meeting" is repeated too many times in the table ; please clean it.
Results are based on responses from 6 out of 11 members (54.55%).
No response was received from the following Agencies:
ASI
UKSA
CNSA
CSA
INPE
Secretariat Interpretation of Results: Adopted Provisionally
Resulting CMC Resolution: CMC-R-2010-08-006
Inferred Secretariat Action: Release minutes after
provisions have been addressed.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CMC E-Poll Identifier: CMC-P-2010-08-006 Authorization to publish
Corrigendum 1 to CCSDS 133.0-B-1, Space Packet Protocol (Blue Book,
Issue 1, September 2003)
Results of CMC poll beginning 18 August 2010 and ending 2 September 2010:
ADOPT: 6 (85.71%) (DLR, ESA, INPE, JAXA, NASA, UKSA)
ADOPT PROVISIONALLY: 1 (14.29%) (CNES)
REJECT: 0 (0%)
REJECT WITH COMMENTS: 0 (0%)
CNES: Approval is based on assumption that this corrigendum
will be reported to SC13 for alignment of the ISO standard.
INPE: The approval assumes that the concomitant process
through ISO TC20/SC13 will be provided for the updating of the
corresponding document in the ISO domain.
Results are based on responses from 7 out of 11 members (63.64%).
No response was received from the following Agencies:
ASI
CNSA
CSA
FSA
Secretariat Interpretation of Results: Adopted Provisionally
Resulting CMC Resolution: CMC-R-2010-09-001
Inferred Secretariat Action: Publish Corrigendum
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
_______________________________________________
CESG-all mailing list
CESG-all at mailman.ccsds.org
http://mailman.ccsds.org/mailman/listinfo/cesg-all
[attachment "SEA SM&C - CCSDS Standard Overlap Analysis v4 30Sep09.ppt" deleted by Mario Merri/esoc/ESA] [attachment "d0-SM&C-OverlapSolutions-05-Sep-2010.xls" deleted by Mario Merri/esoc/ESA]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/css-rasg/attachments/20100915/a924f903/attachment.html
More information about the CSS-RASG
mailing list