[MOIMS-NAV-EXEC] Requested Changes to CCSDS Navigation Standards Normative Annexes (Part 3A)

[Space Assigned Numbers Authority]

Dear David,

The new organization role was created.
https://sanaregistry.org/r/organization-roles/records/33

Best regards,
Julien Bernard
Space Assigned Numbers Authority

On 2019-10-07 00 h 13, 'Berry, David S (US 3920)' via Engineering wrote:
>  
> 
> Dear SANA Operator:
> 
>  
> 
> I am sending this email to continue work upon Nav WG SANA Registry
> clean-up actions requested by Peter Shames. I will break this task up
> into manageable chunks in order to facilitate actions for me, actions
> for you, and Peter's auditing function.
> 
>  
> 
> In this email I will request action on a variant of item #3d below
> (highlighted). This will be the first of 2 requests related to this item.
> 
>  
> 
> Organization role of "Re-Entry Data Message Provider" to the
> "Organization Roles" registry OID = 1.3.112.4.5.1
> 
>  
> 
> Once this role has been created, I will request (in Part 3B) that two
> organizations (at least) have this role associated with their
> organization entries.
> 
>  
> 
> Regards,
> 
> David
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> *From: *"Shames, Peter M (US 312B)" <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
> *Date: *Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 3:27 PM
> *To: *"Berry, David S (US 3920)" <david.s.berry at jpl.nasa.gov>, "SANA
> Steering Group (SSG)" <ssg at mailman.ccsds.org>, Space Assigned Numbers
> Authority <info at sanaregistry.org>
> *Cc: *"thomas.gannett at tgannett.net" <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>,
> "Mario.Merri at esa.int" <Mario.Merri at esa.int>
> *Subject: *Re: URGENT: The CCSDS Re-Entry Data Message Standard
> 
>  
> 
> Dear David, SANA Steering Group, and SANA Operator
> 
>  
> 
> I have reviewed this set of concerns with David Berry and reviewed the
> status of the several registries that are involved in this standard.  I
> am convinced that the Nav WG has done due diligence in creating,
> vetting, and validating these several registries.  I had voiced some
> concerns to David about the way that certain of the registry entries are
> formatted and he has agreed to resolve these in an expeditious fashion. 
> Based on this agreement I have agreed to conditionally approve these
> registries.   I am sending this note to affirm that and to ask that the
> following actions be carried out:
> 
>  
> 
>  1. Assign the following registries and their contents "Approved"
>     status.  The Nav WG has vetted this and I see no reason not to
>     approve them:
>      1. Orbit Centers: This WG level registry is a candidate registry.
>      2. Time Systems: This WG level registry is a candidate registry.
>      3. Celestial Body Reference Frames: This WG level registry is a
>         candidate registry.
>      4. Orbit Relative Reference Frames: This WG level registry was
>         re-created as a candidate registry.
>  2. After this is done the related document, the Re-Entry Data Message
>     (RDM) Draft CCSDS Standard, can proceed through the approval for
>     publication process.
>  3. David has agreed to do the following clean-up actions on these
>     registries, to be carried out as quickly as possible, but not prior
>     to starting the approval process:
>      1. Fix the reference fields in all of these registries, where
>         appropriate, by moving text from the "Description and Reference"
>         field to the "Reference Field"
>      2. Change the name of the "Description and Reference" column to
>         just "Description"
>      3. Adopt the existing Organization Role "Flight Dynamics Data
>         Providers", OID = 1.3.112.4.5.1.4.3 , for the Nav organizations
>         that provide this RDM service (and document it) 
>      4. Work with at least the members of the Nav WG to get their
>         agencies who do provide these kinds of data to identify as
>         service providers
> 
>  
> 
> If anyone has issues with this please let me know ASAP.  Otherwise
> please move ahead with all due speed to get these registries sorted out
> so that this doc may get into the Approve for Publication queue.
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks, Peter
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> *From: *David Berry <david.s.berry at jpl.nasa.gov>
> *Date: *Saturday, August 31, 2019 at 9:16 AM
> *To: *Space Assigned Numbers Authority <info at sanaregistry.org>
> *Cc: *Tom Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>, Mario Merri
> <Mario.Merri at esa.int>, Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
> *Subject: *URGENT: The CCSDS Re-Entry Data Message Standard
> 
>  
> 
> Dear SANA:
> 
>  
> 
> Yesterday 30-Aug-2019 I received a call from Tom Gannett, CCSDS Lead
> Editor, regarding the Re-Entry Data Message Draft CCSDS Standard
> (hereafter, "RDM"). The RDM is at the point of being submitted to the
> CESG and CMC for the polls required for approval to publish, however,
> Tom pointed out an issue that I need to address. Specifically, he stated
> that he could not prepare the required RDM polls of CESG and CMC at this
> time.
> 
>  
> 
> The RDM requires that the values for several keywords be drawn from SANA
> registries, as follows:
> 
>  
> 
> 1. Organizations registry: This enterprise level registry is an approved
> registry; no action is necessary.
> 
> 2. Conjunction Data Message CATALOG_NAME registry: This Working Group
> (WG) level registry is an approved registry; no action is necessary.
> 
> 3. Orbit Centers: This WG level registry is a candidate registry.
> 
> 4. Time Systems: This WG level registry is a candidate registry.
> 
> 5. Celestial Body Reference Frames: This WG level registry is a
> candidate registry.
> 
> 6. Orbit Relative Reference Frames: This WG level registry was created
> in the SANA "beta", but has since been overlaid. The material necessary
> to create the registry has been provided to info at sanaregistry.org
> <mailto:info at sanaregistry.org>.
> 
>  
> 
> To date I have assumed that once a Blue Book is approved by the CESG and
> CMC that any relevant candidate registries would be promoted to
> "Approved', but according to Tom these polls cannot proceed without the
> various registries being approved. The relevant SANA-related Yellow
> Books (313.0-Y-2, 313.1-Y-1, 313.2-Y-1) do not mention CESG/CMC polling
> in any significant fashion, but there is a statement in 313.0-Y-2,
> section 3.10, that "The SANA operator shall publish the approved
> registry prior to the final publication of the document that creates
> it." Given that my prior assumption has apparently been in error, it
> appears that the RDM cannot be approved for publication without the
> registries #3, #4, #5, #6 listed above being "approved".
> 
>  
> 
> Accordingly, I would like to request that the registries listed as #3,
> #4, #5 above be "approved" as soon as possible, and that the registry
> listed as #6 above be created as soon as possible for review by the
> Navigation Working Group and then approved as soon as possible.
> According to my understanding, this will then allow Tom Gannett to
> create the requisite CESG and CMC "approval to publish" polls. Our WG
> has been hoping for publication of the RDM prior to the Fall 2019 CCSDS
> Meetings, and I believe this may still be possible, though the timing
> will likely be tight. The WG will certainly do everything in its power
> to respond immediately to any information or actions required by the
> SANA Operator in furtherance of this request (reference 313.2-Y-1
> section 2.3(i)).
> 
>  
> 
> Best Regards, and Thank You so much for the excellent SANA support to date,
> 
> David Berry
> 
> Chair, CCSDS Navigation Working Group
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
>