[MOIMS-NAV-EXEC] CCSDS Nav WG Telecon Minutes 06-May-2015

[Berry, David S (3920)]

Dave:

Thanks for your comments.  We have only just begun the process of revising
the ODM, and I expect it will take a while particularly due to the
proposal to add an entirely new message into the mix.

With regard to the OMM, I must remind you that you were the major
proponent of adding the ability to include data from which a user could
construct a TLE if they so desired.  Because the OMM is NOW in the
standard, and there are potentially users thereof, we must carefully
evaluate the implications of removing it regardless of how many entities
are CREATING them.

With regard to the OHM, discussions are only starting.  Thus the detailed
content and the nature of that content (e.g., required/optional fields)
are far from settled.

I welcome your participation in the further discussion of these topics.

Hope to see you soon,
David 





On 5/7/15, 12:13 PM, "SkySentry" <finklemand at skysentry.net> wrote:

>David,
>
>I was in AIAA business meetings in DC.   This seems to happen every time.
> I am still here. I reenforce two recommendations.  The validity of both
>can be proved by assessing or estimating their broad use or utility.
>ISO requires Global Applicability.  The practices of a specific
>stakeholder are prohibited in an ISO standard.  I can forward the
>normative references.  Internationally this constitutes restraint of
>trade.  I have only recently encountered this, but it is serious.
>Therefore, the Orbit Mean Elements Message should be deprecated, since it
>is issued only by the USAF and is without much argument used by no one
>else, if anyone.  The USAF still issues TLE's primarily.   The Orbit
>Hybrid Message has similar difficulties.  It reflects the practices and
>needs of a single stakeholder.   In addition the preponderance of
>optional data elements is counter to principle (also codified in
>normative documents) that standards must include a preponderance of
>requirements, not options.  Options and recommendations belong in
>non-normative ISO Technical Reports and Guides.  In addition, such
>flexibility belongs in mutually negotiated ICD's, not in world-wide
>standards.  There are guides for negotiating ICD's.
>
>Regards,
>
>Dave
>
>(I will be in Pasadena for Space 2015 in September.)
>
>Sent from my iPad
>
>> On May 7, 2015, at 12:37 PM, Berry, David S (3920)
>><david.s.berry at jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> All:
>> 
>> Attached are the minutes from yesterday's telecon, along with the
>>updated
>> set of Action Items compiled at Pasadena (with rescheduling as
>>applicable).
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> David
>> 
>> <ccsds-navwg-telecon-20150506.pdf>
>> <navwg-action-items-201503.pdf>
>> _______________________________________________
>> MOIMS-NAV-EXEC mailing list
>> MOIMS-NAV-EXEC at mailman.ccsds.org
>> http://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/moims-nav-exec