[MOIMS-NAV-EXEC] Requested Information Updates to CCSDS Organizations and Organizational Roles SANA Regstries

Tue Feb 4 18:20:04 UTC 2020

Dear David,

The registries have been updated.

---
Best regards,
Julien Bernard
Space Assigned Numbers Authority

On , 'Berry, David S (US 3920)' via Engineering wrote:
> Dear SANA Operator:
> 
> Now that the Re-Entry Data Message has been approved and published as
> a Blue Book (508.1-B-1), I'd like to request that the new
> organizational role "Re-Entry Data Message Provider" (OID
> 1.3.112.4.5.1.17) be added to two organizations:
> 
> 1. European Space Agency Space Surveillance and Tracking (ESA-SST, OID
> 1.3.112.4.1.12.2)
> 
> 2. German Space Operations Center (GSOC, OID 1.3.112.4.1.11.1)
> 
> Additionally, I believe that an entry of "[ccsds-508.1-B-1]" can be
> added in the "Reference" column of the "Re-Entry Data Message
> Provider" entry in
> https://sanaregistry.org/r/organization-roles?sort=name , and the
> "Status" can be changed to "Assigned".
> 
> Thanks! and Best Regards,
> 
> David Berry
> 
> Chair, Navigation WG
> 
> FROM: MOIMS-NAV-EXEC <moims-nav-exec-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> on
> behalf of "moims-nav-exec at mailman.ccsds.org"
> <moims-nav-exec at mailman.ccsds.org>
> REPLY-TO: David Berry <david.s.berry at jpl.nasa.gov>
> DATE: Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 9:13 PM
> TO: Marc Blanchet <info at sanaregistry.org>
> CC: "Shames, Peter M (US 312B)" <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>,
> "moims-nav-exec at mailman.ccsds.org" <moims-nav-exec at mailman.ccsds.org>
> SUBJECT: [EXTERNAL] [MOIMS-NAV-EXEC] Requested Changes to CCSDS
> Navigation Standards Normative Annexes (Part 3A)
> 
> 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:
> 
> 	* 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.
> 
>  	* After this is done the related document, the Re-Entry Data Message
> (RDM) Draft CCSDS Standard, can proceed through the approval for
> publication process.
> 
> 	* 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.
> 
> 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