[Moims-mp] [EXTERNAL] RE: 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

Wed Jan 10 17:57:09 UTC 2024

Hi Peter,

I did do a review of as much more of the book as I could manage in the limited time I have available for such reviews.  The latest version from me, with mark-ups throughout, is attached.

I totally support Tom’s comments, for a couple of reasons, primary being adherence to the CCSDS Publication guidelines, including using terse style, and the size of section 3.   I would admit, for myself, that complying with terse style can be a personal challenge, but it really is essential in the heart of Blue Books.  That said, I have absolutely no issue with including UML/SysML diagrams where they bring clarity, in part because they can be examples of their own form of terse and accurate style. I find them to be of considerable value.

You may want to think about taking those many pages of descriptive materials and moving them into their own “best practices” Magenta Book.  I do realize that this represents work, but it would also have the useful effect of rendering the required BB contents of the document in a more useful and accessible way.  Right now it is a bit of a “door stop”, thick and heavy.  We can discuss how best to do this if you are interested.

Best regards, Peter

From: Peter Van Der Plas <Peter.van.der.Plas at esa.int>
Date: Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 9:19 AM
To: Tom Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>, Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: "moims-mp at mailman.ccsds.org" <moims-mp at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: 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 Tom and Peter,

Please find here a first response to your comments on the Mission Planning and Scheduling Services Red Book as per below email.

Regarding Tom's note on the content of section 3: The WG agrees to remove any descriptive text and UML diagrams from section 3. However, the tables in section 3 contain the specification of all data types as used in the Mission Planning Services (section 4) and File Formats (section 7). As such, this is information passed "over the wire" (or in XML files) and is testable (we will cover this with test cases in our Yellow Book). As such, we believe this information qualifies as Blue Book material. Note that this approach is similar as compared to other MO Services books. With the information in section 3 now becoming less descriptive, we may move the updated section 3 further down in the document, in favour of the Services and File Formats specifications. In addition, the WG considers making the information in the current section 3 available in a new Magenta book on the "MP&S Information Model".

Please let us know if our suggested way forward is acceptable for you. We can then proceed updating the current Red Book accordingly, and to possibly initiate a new Magenta Book project.

Regarding the table formatting problem as observed by Peter: This problem was introduced during the processing of our White Book and mainly affects the table borders and header colours. Below I have included an example of the original layout of the tables in our White Book:

[cid:image001.png at 01DA43AB.5FBC5E60]

We believe that we can correct the table borders and headers relatively easily (hopefully in an automated way using Word macros). As such, we will take the action to update the tables in the current Red Book as provided by Tom on 2023-11-29.

Regarding the other comments from Peter: we will soon provide a full response to all comments. Peter: You have indicated below that “I do commit to reading the rest of it and providing feedback”. Would you have an idea when you will be able to provide your feedback on the remaining part of the book?

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<mailto:Peter.van.der.Plas at esa.int> | www.esa.int<https://urldefense.us/v3/__http:/www.esa.int__;!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!KHBO7a7nNHZrEQv9tgIxb-EJkK9BhMLF1EkLhsAwAHc-NV2k8Yo0PXVGEf3Ck3d7JSskYuuUYywXRiSlLWuP1PppSTJC8pVM9QUv$>

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<mailto: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<mailto: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

Logothete, L.L.C.

thomas.gannett at tgannett.net<mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>

+1 443 472 0805

-----Original Message-----

From: CCSDS Secretariat [mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net]

Sent: Friday, December 01, 2023 10:24 AM

To: tyamada at pub.isas.ac.jp<mailto:tyamada at pub.isas.ac.jp>; roger.rocketbrain at btinternet.com<mailto:roger.rocketbrain at btinternet.com>

Cc: Peter.M.Shames at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:Peter.M.Shames at jpl.nasa.gov>; Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de<mailto:Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de>

Subject: Re: 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/moims-mp/attachments/20240110/7112706b/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 10123 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/moims-mp/attachments/20240110/7112706b/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 529x1r0_CESG_Approval-SEA.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 6294847 bytes
Desc: 529x1r0_CESG_Approval-SEA.pdf
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/moims-mp/attachments/20240110/7112706b/attachment-0001.pdf>