[MOIMS-NAV-EXEC] [EXTERNAL] Re: Requested Information Updates to CCSDS Organizations and Organizational Roles SANA Regstries
Shames, Peter M (US 312B)
peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov
Tue Feb 4 22:11:33 UTC 2020
Thanks guys.
Peter
From: Space Assigned Numbers Authority <info at sanaregistry.org>
Date: Tuesday, February 4, 2020 at 10:20 AM
To: David Berry <david.s.berry at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>, "moims-nav-exec at mailman.ccsds.org" <moims-nav-exec at mailman.ccsds.org>, Space Assigned Numbers Authority <info at sanaregistry.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Requested Information Updates to CCSDS Organizations and Organizational Roles SANA Regstries
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<mailto:moims-nav-exec-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>> on
behalf of "moims-nav-exec at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:moims-nav-exec at mailman.ccsds.org>"
<moims-nav-exec at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:moims-nav-exec at mailman.ccsds.org>>
REPLY-TO: David Berry <david.s.berry at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:david.s.berry at jpl.nasa.gov>>
DATE: Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 9:13 PM
TO: Marc Blanchet <info at sanaregistry.org<mailto:info at sanaregistry.org>>
CC: "Shames, Peter M (US 312B)" <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>>,
"moims-nav-exec at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:moims-nav-exec at mailman.ccsds.org>" <moims-nav-exec at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:david.s.berry at jpl.nasa.gov>>, "SANA
Steering Group (SSG)" <ssg at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:ssg at mailman.ccsds.org>>, Space Assigned Numbers
Authority <info at sanaregistry.org<mailto:info at sanaregistry.org>>
CC: "thomas.gannett at tgannett.net<mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>" <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net<mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>>,
"Mario.Merri at esa.int<mailto:Mario.Merri at esa.int>" <Mario.Merri at esa.int<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:info at sanaregistry.org>>
CC: Tom Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net<mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>>, Mario Merri
<Mario.Merri at esa.int<mailto:Mario.Merri at esa.int>>, Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto: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/20200204/00d0eeaa/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the MOIMS-NAV-EXEC
mailing list