[Moims-ipr] Re: [Moims-dai] SANA charter

[Don Sawyer]

Nestor,

Here are my comments on the latest SANA charter.

The latest version of the SANA charter has incorporated most of the 
changes I had previously recommended, but not all.  I feel that the 
sentence and four bullets, in the second main paragraph, starting as 
‘In general, the SANA team will provide:…” needs change.  First, it is 
not clear what is the ‘SANA Team’ – the SANA WG, SANA operational 
entity, some other combination?.  Bullets 2 and 3, and possibly 4, are 
not something that the SANA Operations Entity is likely to be able to 
support directly due to a lack of expertise in a small operational unit 
(maybe a person).   These are activities that GSFC had proposed would 
be handled mostly by a SANA advisory group, which we agreed in Atlanta 
would be something that the CESG could agree to support when the SANA 
operational entity began under the CESG guidance.

Regarding the four categories, it should be clear that category 4 is 
not a near term focus and I don’t believe it should be considered in 
approaching deliverable 1 on registry requirements.

Deliverable 2 on developing a prototype should be contingent on 
demonstrating in deliverable 1 that there are sufficient detailed 
requirements to make the prototype a feasible next step.  It may be 
that there will be other ‘directions’ that should be pursued, with 
deliverables, before a prototype is pursued.

It now appears that deliverable 3 is one option, a standard 
(deliverable 4) is another.  Perhaps it should be and/or, but I like 
that it is not fully tied down at this point.  In fact, I think after 
deliverable 1 is provided, there should be a full review and update to 
the charter and direction, depending on the findings.

Regarding the schedule, I think everything after the delivery of the 
requirements assessment in April should be tentative and subject to 
full revision pending the findings.

A review comment I saw raised the issue of how SANA would work with 
other registry authorities outside CCSDS(like NORAD) .  I find this to 
be very premature and not something that any SANA operation entity 
would be able to address on its own.  It is not something that the SANA 
WG would address because the need for such an interaction has not even 
been adequately defined, let alone the specifics of the overlap that 
would need coordination.  As a practical matter, a CCSDS WG needs to 
define their requirements for a registry service, including just what 
entities need to be registered, who has authority to make such 
registrations, who has access to the registrations, and how updates to 
these registrations are to be handled.  I believe that only when these 
details are agreed by the WG, and there is a corresponding need for 
coordination with some entity outside CCSDS, can there be a practical 
approach to getting such coordination.

In summary, the scope of the proposed charter has been substantially 
narrowed from previous versions.   The main change I’d like to see if 
the need for full evaluation after the 1st deliverable, and possibly 
after each deliverable subsequently.

ciao,

Don





On Oct 16, 2005, at 1:12 PM, Nestor.Peccia at esa.int wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> The SANA Charter has to be reviewed.
>
> I would like to receive your comments asap
>
> (See attached file: SANA Charter Revised 10-14-05.doc)
>
> ciao
> nestor
>
> <SANA Charter Revised 
> 10-14-05.doc>_______________________________________________
> Moims-dai mailing list
> Moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org
> http://mailman.ccsds.org/mailman/listinfo/moims-dai
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 3586 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/moims-ipr/attachments/20051023/bb0eb7b0/attachment.bin