[Moims-dai] FW: [MOIMS] MOIMS Comments to IOAG/MOSSG Report

[David Giaretta]

Just in case you did not receive this

 

..David

 

From: MOIMS [mailto:moims-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] On Behalf Of
Nestor.Peccia at esa.int
Sent: 20 September 2016 09:29
To: Mario.Merri at esa.int
Cc: moims at mailman.ccsds.org; cesg at mailman.ccsds.org
Subject: Re: [MOIMS] MOIMS Comments to IOAG/MOSSG Report

 

Mario 

As CESG Chair I have the following comments to the MOIMS response to MOSSG
documents 

*	The MOSSG report is generally very supportive of the MOIMS work,
although concerns are raised on their slow adoption. Once the report is
approved by the IOAG, it assumed that it should be promoted by the IOAG,
thus speeding up adoption by missions. How can the IOAG and CCSDS team up to
best achieve this? 

1.	Missions usually adopt published standards. Its slow motion is
justified by the lack of a minimum suite of SM&C standards that guarantees
interoperability 

2.	IOAG has not given any priority to the Catalogue 3. MOSSG did it
(but it is the opinion of the SG members and not the result of an IOAG
Agency wide poll). CCSDS' comment will be to take them out in order to
follow the same process and format of SC #1 and 2. IOAG has its internal
procedure to do it. 

3.	CCSDS shall issue a common and global comment for all 3 IOAG SCs (1,
2 and 3) wrt slow adoption by missions due to long elapsed time for
production of standards (associated with the lack of resources) 

*	Just to give an example: When comparing our current Projects wrt
SC#1 and taking out the already published standards (6), we have  3 Approved
, 6 Drafts and 6 not yet existing Projects. This means 36 resouces from all
Agencies 
*	SC#2 status is worse

CESG Chair Suggestion: Issue global comment for all IOAG SCs  on slow
adoption by mission and lack of CCSDS resources to implement them 

*	Considering the bullet above and the many comments/clarifications
raised on the draft Catalog#3, it is suggested that a small joint team,
MOSSG-MOIMS, initiate a technical discussion to refine Catalog#3. 
I disagree. CCSDS needs to produce recommendations and leave away this
notion to continuously create new joint teams. 
The idea was that the MOSSG completes its task after approval of the
catalogue. 
As both MOSSG Chairs are members of the SM&C WG (one of them being the
Chair), the technical discussion is guaranteed within the CCSDS MOIMS SM&C
WG. The Rome meeting is the ideal venue to discuss it from the technical
point of view. Telecons and San Antonio meeting will also address this
point. 
CESG Chair suggestion: Enforce technical discussion of SC# 3 in the next 2
Technical meeting (Rome and San Antonio) and the usual monthly telecons. 
*	R1.1: The recommendation is generally well received that we should
focus on a limited number of functional areas, however several comments have
been raised on the scope of the high priority functional areas (see
Calatog#3). In any case, even if minor misalignment in scope exists, we
would like to give priority to the books that are close to publication. 
No comments shall be raised on priorities, because they are a consensus of
the SG members and not the result of an agreed IOAG Agencies poll. 
CESG Chair Suggestion: Raise a global comment on SC#3: Take priorities out 

I plan to circulate the 1st draft of the CCSDS Presentation to IOAG by
todqay cob 

ciao 
nestor 

This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee
or addressees only.
The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in whole
or in part) of its
content is not permitted.
If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete
it from your system.
Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the
sender.
 
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/moims-dai/attachments/20160920/6e6c5041/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: Untitled attachment 00028.txt
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/moims-dai/attachments/20160920/6e6c5041/attachment.txt>