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

[Berry, David S (US 3920)]

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:
     *   Orbit Centers: This WG level registry is a candidate registry.
     *   Time Systems: This WG level registry is a candidate registry.
     *   Celestial Body Reference Frames: This WG level registry is a candidate registry.
     *   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:
     *   Fix the reference fields in all of these registries, where appropriate, by moving text from the "Description and Reference" field to the "Reference Field"
     *   Change the name of the "Description and Reference" column to just "Description"
     *   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)
     *   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




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/moims-nav-exec/attachments/20191007/a7996d67/attachment-0001.html>