[Moims-mp] FW: CESG-P-2023-10-008 Approval to release CCSDS 529.1-R-1, Mission Operations—Mission Planning and Scheduling Services (Red Book, Issue 1) for CCSDS Agency review

Mon Dec 4 08:25:31 UTC 2023

Dear all,

We received the results of the CESG poll on the MP&S Blue Book. It has been approved with conditions. We mainly got feedback from Peter Shames, with possibly more comments to come. In addition, there is the feedback from Tom Gannett on the structure and content of the book, in particular on section 3.

We can discuss the way forward in the next WG meeting this Wednesday at 16:00 CET.

Best regards,

Peter

ESA - European Space Agency

Peter van der Plas
EGSE and Ground Systems section (TEC-SWG)
Directorate of Technology, Engineering and Quality

ESTEC
Keplerlaan 1, PO Box 299, NL-2200 AG Noordwijk, The Netherlands
Peter.van.der.Plas at esa.int | www.esa.int
Phone +31 71 565 5848 | Fax +31 71 565 5420 | Mobile +31 6 81 75 01 50

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>
Sent: Friday, December 1, 2023 4:29 PM
To: Peter Van Der Plas <Peter.van.der.Plas at esa.int>
Subject: FW: CESG-P-2023-10-008 Approval to release CCSDS 529.1-R-1, Mission Operations—Mission Planning and Scheduling Services (Red Book, Issue 1) for CCSDS Agency review

Dear Document Rapporteur,

The CESG poll to approve release of CCSDS 529.1-R-1, Mission Operations—Mission Planning and Scheduling Services (Red Book, Issue 1) for CCSDS Agency review concluded with conditions. Please negotiate disposition of the conditions directly with the AD(s) who voted to approve with conditions and CC the Secretariat on all related correspondence.

CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2023-10-008 Approval to release CCSDS 529.1-R-1, Mission Operations—Mission Planning and Scheduling Services (Red Book, Issue 1) for CCSDS Agency review

Results of CESG poll beginning 31 October 2023 and ending 30 November 2023:

                 Abstain:  0 (0%)
 Approve Unconditionally:  3 (60%) (Fischer, Aguilar Sanchez, Wilmot)  Approve with Conditions:  2 (40%) (Shames, Cola)  Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

     Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions):  This is a new document, and I have given it a close read.  There are a significant number of confusing definitions and terms, issues with presentation and formating, and other issues with the document.  I have not yet read it in its entirety, but there are already enough issues noted to request that the document be reviewed and "scrubbed".  I do commit to reading the rest of it and providing feedback.

     Tomaso de Cola (Approve with Conditions):  Maybe it's more relavant for the update of other MAL existing book:

In the security annex it is claimed that the channel security is matter of the transport layer. From the existing MAL association blue books (i.e. MAL over TCP/HTTP/SPP/ZMTP) I cannot find however very specific details on this. There are certainly mention about IPsec, TLS, SSL, HTTPS, but not such to provide means to implement a secure association.

     Jonathan Wilmot (Approve Unconditionally):  Comments to consider as part of agency review.
1) In section 1.4 “security considerations are assumed to be handled at the MO framework layer or below” You might consider signed messages and/or file as being above the MO framework especially if the plans are to be used on deployed space systems or critical operations. The term “body signature” seems misleading. Isn’t it just the body/contents of the structure?
2) Overall concern that with the MAL book is being substantially updated, some of the concepts referenced in the MAL framework may no longer be valid. Would this book have to change if the MAL has changes?
3) There is overall value in an exchangeable format for operations plan, but it should be understood that an organization’s mission operations facility already has systems in place that have been developed and certified for the mission class at great cost. It would be useful for those mission operations facilities to have a standard format to exchange plans such that the plans could be integrated into their existing systems.  This format could be used without having to replace the existing framework and tools.
4) In Figure 3-24: Position Data Type, there are several parameters listed as strings, is there a standard dictionary of terms that would be used? Something like Earth, Moon, Mars, as position references? I assume alititude is above the PositionReference.  This comment is general and not specific to the figure. All plans should be based on an standard DoT.

Total Respondents:  5

No response was received from the following Area(s):

     CSS

SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Approved with Conditions
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            Generate CMC poll after conditions have been addressed

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Editor’s note:

Section 3 of this document, which is 129 pages in length and thus constitutes nearly half the document, is essentially a tutorial with a handful for requirements sprinkled in. It is as such in direct violation of the both the letter and spirit of the Publications Manual:

“terse style:  Style of specification in which normal text is limited to concise statements of requirements.  Discussions concerning rationale, background, and other ancillary topics are constrained to be brief and are set off from normal text, usually in a note, or sometimes in a subsection that is clearly labeled as being non-normative.” (1.6.1    TERMS)

“3.4.3.3        For normative-track documents,
a)      specifications shall begin in section 3 and continue through as many subsequent sections as needed;
b)      each specification shall be explicitly identified by a unique subsection or paragraph number;
c)      text shall be written in terse style [emphasis added]; . . .”

Since there is no provision in CCSDS procedures for granting dispensations for Publications Manual requirements, section 3 needs to be either removed from the document in its entirety, perhaps to be reworked as a Magenta Book, or reduced to the handful of requirements it contains, possibly with the informative material replicated in a Green Book.

This message is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. It may contain proprietary information and/or protected content. Any unauthorised disclosure, use, retention or dissemination is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately. ESA applies appropriate organisational measures to protect personal data, in case of data privacy queries, please contact the ESA Data Protection Officer (dpo at esa.int).
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 529x1r0_CESG_Approval-SEA.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 4047973 bytes
Desc: 529x1r0_CESG_Approval-SEA.pdf
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/moims-mp/attachments/20231204/591cae35/attachment-0001.pdf>