[MOIMS-NAV-EXEC] [EXTERNAL] CESG-P-2019-10-002 CESG Approval Poll

[Berry, David S (US 3920)]



Peter:



In essence, the condition you have raised is "Have you considered characterizing this as an MB?".



Based on the specifications you cite, while there may be some case to be made for making this a Magenta Book, I am hoping to convince you that leaving this as a Green Book is the better course of action.



1. This is version 4 of a document that has been a Green Book since 2001. Anyone who might have used this book in the past may not be able to find it if the "color" changes.



2. This version of the document is incredibly overdue. It's a long story that I'll condense considerably... but Version 4 was originally proposed in 2009, took a few wrong turns, was finally made an official project in 2015 with a target date in October 2017, and then got delayed from there until it was re-assigned to a "can do" Lead Editor. I am concerned that a color change at this point will delay things even further with marginal benefit.



3. Given the emergence of the SANA Registry as a viable resource for CCSDS materials, and the emphasis of this particular Green Book on "Definitions" and "Conventions", the Navigation Working Group has actually been considering phasing out this book entirely after migrating the bulk of the material to the SANA. While we have not embarked seriously upon this course, we have been considering it since the Fall 2016 Meetings in Rome and have laid some of the foundations with the  registries in https://sanaregistry.org/r/navigation_standard_normative_annexes .



Therefore, I would like to request that you consider the condition "satisfied" and free up this book for CMC Poll and eventual publication. It represents a substantial improvement over the current Green Book version 3 published in May 2010.



Thank you!

David Berry











On 10/21/19, 2:23 AM, "CCSDS Secretariat" <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net> wrote:



    David:



    The CESG poll to approve publication of CCSDS

    500.0-G-4, Navigation Data—Definitions and

    Conventions (Green Book, Issue 4) 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.



    Tom







    >CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2019-10-002

    >Approval to publish CCSDS 500.0-G-4, Navigation

    >Data—Definitions and Conventions (Green Book, Issue 4)

    >Results of CESG poll beginning 4 October 2019 and ending 18 October 2019:

    >

    >                 Abstain:  0 (0%) Approve

    > Unconditionally:  4 (80%) (Merri, Burleigh, Cola, Calzolari)

    >Approve with Conditions:  1 (20%) (Shames)

    >Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

    >CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

    >

    >     Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions):  I

    > skimmed the document and looked, in particular, at the stated contents:

    >

    >b)Section 3 provides foundational information on

    >the data types and units served by the navigation messages.

    >

    >c)Section 4 provides details about coordinate

    >frames, time systems, astrodynamics constants,

    >environmental models, and other ancillary

    >concepts important in spacecraft navigation.

    >

    >d)Section 5 discusses properties and processes

    >of the entities that participate in a navigation data exchange.

    >

    >e)Section 6 discusses the types and associated

    >attributes of measurements that may be made during a navigation session.

    >

    >I am left wondering is this document is really

    >best characterized as a Green Book, or if its

    >contents and intended use really make it a

    >Magenta Book in nature?  Magenta Books, after all, state this:

    >

    >    6.1.4.3 Recommended Practices are normative

    > and have prescriptive content but are typically

    > not directly implementable for interoperability

    > or cross support. They may be of several types:

    >

    >        a)  specifications that are

    > “foundational” for other specifications, but

    > within themselves do not define content in a

    > way that allows independent development and

    > testing of separate but interoperable systems;

    >Have you considered characterizing this as an MB?

    >

    >     Scott Burleigh (Approve

    > Unconditionally):   Note, not a condition: on

    > page 4-10, for clarity, the x-axis of the graph

    > should be labeled "difference in seconds" or something to that effect.

    >

    >

    >Total Respondents:  5

    >

    >No response was received from the following Area(s):

    >

    >     CSS

    >     SOIS

    >

    >

    >

    >SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Approved with Conditions

    >PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            Generate

    >CMC poll after conditions have been addressed

    >

    >* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/moims-nav-exec/attachments/20191023/4c55a5d5/attachment.html>