[Moims-dai] Digital Archive Architecture Design Document Project Plan

John Garrett garrett at his.com
Mon Dec 12 20:07:32 UTC 2016



OK.  I'm fine with getting things done earlier if that is realistic.  I've
added in the detail because I hate having to constantly redo the schedule
(and I hate optics of it even more) because the original was not realistic.


The reality is that the last couple years are unlikely to be completed
quicker than listed because many components are pretty hard set in their
times (CESG, CMC reviews each run for (at least) 2 weeks, the length of ISO
reviews is set, the CCSDS review lengths can be tailored I think, but that
is not on the critical path).  The other items in the last couple years
(CCSDS and  ISO editor queues, how quickly CESG, CMC comments can be
address, the turnaround by the editors with the updates from the comments)
are probably listed at their minimum times  already and will already
probably result in delays of our projects. 


I think it's reasonable and even a good idea to have a CESG technical review
of the documents before they go out for their first public review.
Hopefully technical issues will be caught and the public's review time will
not be wasted on issues that should have been caught.  It would be great if
the CESG and CMC reviews between the first and second agency reviews and
after the second agency were not chances for new technical reviews when they
already had a chance to participate in the agency reviews.  I think is
reasonable to restrict those reviews to ensuring that the correct processes
were used to address the RIDs and that the responses to the RIDs were
appropriate.  This is what happens in most other standards organizations
such as ISO.  Or it would be good if we adopted rules like IETF where no
single CESG member could hold up a document.  I think in IETF at least 2
need to agree that there is a problem.


Anyway, thanks for reviewing the scheduling.


Wishing you prosperity and peace,



From: MOIMS-DAI [mailto:moims-dai-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] On Behalf Of
Mike Kearney
Sent: Friday, December 9, 2016 10:06 AM
To: 'MOIMS-Data Archive Ingestion' <moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: Re: [Moims-dai] Digital Archive Architecture Design Document
Project Plan


The schedule looks fine to me, though I would hope that we can maybe do some
simplification and finish earlier.  But the total elapsed time looks right
for starters.  Lots of detail there, John, thanks for the rigorous work.   


The intent of the book colors is:  

Blue - Normative and testable

Magenta - Normative but not testable

Green - Informative (not normative).  


The decision on book color should be based on what we intend to produce (not
on who reviews it, etc.).  So if we intend to produce normative "shall"
statements, then it's magenta.  If we're going to produce non-normative
descriptive material, then it's green.   


I think we want this ADD to define things like:  There will be an
abstraction layer;  There will be bindings between the abstraction layer and
the archives that do certain things;  There will be a standardized user
interface that displays metadata, etc.      


If that's right, then it's a magenta book.  


We asked the question earlier about whether an ops concept goes in the ADD
or not, and we finally dropped the ops concept as a separate book.  An ops
concept is more of a green book, since we won't make "shall" statements
about how the system is actually operated, only about how it's intended to
be operated.  We may need to add back an informative green book with
descriptive architecture discussions and the ops concept.  Or maybe we can
make the ops concept (or rather "use cases") become part of a non-normative
annex in a magenta ADD.  


Anyhow. bottom line is that I think the ADD is probably magenta.   


   -=- Mike


Mike Kearney

Huntsville, Alabama, USA


From: MOIMS-DAI [mailto:moims-dai-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] On Behalf Of
John Garrett
Sent: Friday, December 9, 2016 2:28 AM
To: 'MOIMS-Data Archive Ingestion' <moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org
<mailto:moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org> >
Subject: Re: [Moims-dai] Digital Archive Architecture Design Document
Project Plan




One more question about the project.  Should this be a Green Book
(Informational - not a standard) or a Magenta Book (a Standard, but not a
testable protocol)?  


Most of the other CCSDS Architecture documents are Green but some others are
Magenta Books.

I thought we had discussed it just a bit and decided it should be Magenta so
it got reviewed widely.  However, the last version of our draft long-term
plan still shows this as a Green Book.


Wishing you prosperity and peace,




From: MOIMS-DAI [mailto:moims-dai-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] On Behalf Of
John Garrett
Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2016 1:23 AM
To: 'MOIMS-Data Archive Ingestion' <moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org
<mailto:moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org> >
Subject: [Moims-dai] Digital Archive Architecture Design Document Project




I have an Action Item to add a project plan for Digital Archive Architecture
Design Document  to CCSDS CWE Framework.  I've attached a draft of what I
intend to enter into the CCSDS System before our Tuesday telecon (or I can
try to enter it after if people want to discuss it at the telecon.)

Please feel free to provide any updates you think are appropriate.


>From the overall DAI plan, our plan was to start this project early the
coming year and finish in 2020.  I came close but show the project ending in
early 2021.  I've created a spreadsheet with estimated times to complete all
the activities throughout the project.  I've included the one's required to
show completion dates for in the CCSDS system (the unshaded rows).  I've
also added background activities that do not need dates in the CCSDS form,
but they are activities which we need to allot time for and get through.
These are the lightly shaded rows and many of those activities are performed
by CCSDS and are out of our control.  I've assigned what I consider as
optimistic times for completion of those tasks.  Personally, based on past
experience, I think we may end up behind schedule on those items.  I've also
currently included ISO reviews in this document.  I planned with the
presumption that we will want to have concurrent CCSDS and ISO reviews.  Is
that what others expect for this document?  Those activities are shown with
darker shading.   Note that the ISO processing takes place in parallel to
the CCSDS review so the time required for the CCSDS review overlaps with ISO
processing and review.  Alternatively we could start and end the CCSDS and
ISO reviews at the same time, which we have sometimes done in the past.


Let me know what you think.


Wishing you prosperity and peace,



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/moims-dai/attachments/20161212/0cf584c8/attachment.html>

More information about the MOIMS-DAI mailing list