[MOIMS-NAV-EXEC] Re: ODM v.2.30 Draft for your review...

[SkySentry]

Dan is not a member of WG3.  He switched to WG7.

Sent from my iPad

> On Jun 28, 2015, at 6:00 PM, Berry, David S (3920) <david.s.berry at jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> 
> 
> Dave:
> 
> Thanks for your comments.  I appreciate it.
> 
> 1.  No one of us can deprecate the OMM.  Your position is noted.  We will discuss this at the Darmstadt meetings in November.
> 
> 2.  The Orbit Hybrid Message (proposed name) is a direct result of a decision by the CCSDS Navigation WG during the CCSDS-mandated 5 year review of the ODM standard.  This review process has 3 outcomes:  reconfirm, retire, revise.  "Retire" was obviously inappropriate, and we had several requests for revisions, so "reconfirm" was also not appropriate.  "Revise" was the consensus decision.  We are currently very early in the revision process and I believe it is impossible at this point to correctly predict exactly what will emerge from the process.  As you have noted, several of my comments suggest discussion of specific points at Darmstadt... I don't see this as any kind of weakness whatsoever.  It means that I think it will be more productive to entertain a face-to-face discussion on those matters rather than an email discussion.
> 
> 3.  You are of course welcome to discuss and present the ODM revision drafts within SC14/WG3, and to forward the working draft to WG3.  Given that the revision drafts of the ODM are being prepared by Dan Oltrogge (WG3 member), and the fact that you are a member of both WGs (along with Reinhard Kiehling and Ma Chaowei per the WG3 roster), I believe that to a certain extent the negotiation process to which you refer is at least partially underway.
> 
> Regards,
> David
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: David Finkleman <finklemand at skysentry.net>
> Date: Sunday, June 28, 2015 at 12:51 PM
> To: "moims-nav-exec at mailman.ccsds.org" <moims-nav-exec at mailman.ccsds.org>, David Berry <David.S.Berry at jpl.nasa.gov>
> Subject: Re: [MOIMS-NAV-EXEC] Re: ODM v.2.30 Draft for your review...
> 
> My comments are broad and cannot be expressed with respect to specific clauses.
> 
> First, the Mean Elements Message should be deprecated.  The intent was to supplant the Two Line Element Set with more efficient and widely applicable format.  Russia, for example, uses a different mean element model, and several providers use models descended from Paul Cefola's DSST model based on equinoctical elements.   The goal was not achieved.  TLE's persist and are incontrovertibly institutionalized despite their well demonstrated deficiencies.
> 
> Second, the Orbit Hybrid Message should be omitted.  There are many substantive comments on the proposed Hybrid message whose resolution is to defer until the next meeting.   In addition, a standard with a preponderance of optional elements is not a standard.  We faced a similar issue with the CDM.   What is required is consensus on the minimum necessary for effective use.   The credibility of a provider is questionable when essential information is missing.   Optional elements are not the prerogative of the provider.  They must be negotiated between provider and recipient.   This not a standard; it is an ICD.  Anything private between two parties is not a standard.  In fact, 26699 states that it is a guide for those who wish private agreements.
> 
> Finally, SC14/WG3 is the designated parallel developer, demonstrated by the agreement between SC13 and SC14 that led to the ISO registration with an SC14 designator.   This must be negotiated among SC14/WG3 members.
> 
> Respectfully,
> 
> Dave Finkleman
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On 6/28/2015 11:59 AM, Berry, David S (3920) wrote:
>> 
>> Dan:
>> 
>> I've attached my review comments of the ODM P2.30, primarily for sections 2 and 6, with a few Mfor Annex A.  A number of the suggested changes could affect section 7, so I excluded that from consideration at this time.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> David
>> 
>> P.S.:  To all in the WG... please try to complete your ODM review assignment as soon as possible (Section 2, 6, and Annex A... we can deal with other sections in future drafts).  I'm not sure how much feedback Dan has received to date but our target date was 15-Jun-2015 (YES, I'm late too...).
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> DSB
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: "Oltrogge, Daniel" <doltrogge at agi.com>
>> Date: Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 8:43 AM
>> To: "moims-nav-exec at mailman.ccsds.org" <moims-nav-exec at mailman.ccsds.org>
>> Cc: David Berry <David.S.Berry at jpl.nasa.gov>
>> Subject: ODM v.2.30 Draft for your review...
>> 
>> Per my ODM revision action item, here is draft ODM v.2.30 which incorporates all of the 15 suggested revisions that you kindly provided me at the Pasadena CCSDS meeting.
>>  
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Dan
>>  
>> Daniel L. Oltrogge
>> SDC Program Manager & Senior Research Astrodynamicist
>> Center for Space Standards and Innovation
>> Analytical Graphics Incorporated
>> Voice: 719-660-5142; E-mail: oltrogge at agi.com
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> MOIMS-NAV-EXEC mailing list
>> MOIMS-NAV-EXEC at mailman.ccsds.orghttp://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/moims-nav-exec
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/moims-nav-exec/attachments/20150628/a0c8c3d3/attachment.html>