[Moims-sc] [EXTERNAL] FW: CESG-P-2024-06-001 Approval to release CCSDS 522.2-R-2, Mission Operations—Mission Data Product Distribution Services (Red Book, Issue 2) for CCSDS Agency review

[Shames, Peter M (US 9740)]

Dear Mehran,

I just saw this note and had to go back through the email and document trail again to make sure that I understand just what is being proposed.

I understood that you were standardizing:

  1.  The service specification and service operations (sec 3)
  2.  The service data type definitions (sec 4)

I am well aware that in the usual SMC style these are all specified as abstractions, and that they do not become fully realized until there is an interface binding and data binding applied.  So we can leave that issue out of discussion.

What caught my eye in your last email to Tomaso was this statement:

“only the data type definitions, contained in section 4 are normative”

This statement, if accurate, would appear to nullify the “service specification and service operations” that are defined in Section 3.  Is that really your intent?

Regards, Peter


From: MOIMS-SC <moims-sc-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> on behalf of Mehran Sarkarati via MOIMS-SC <moims-sc at mailman.ccsds.org>
Date: Monday, October 28, 2024 at 10:07 AM
To: tomaso.decola at dlr.de <Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de>
Cc: CCSDS Secretariat <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>, moims-sc at mailman.ccsds.org <moims-sc at mailman.ccsds.org>, Daniel Fischer <Daniel.Fischer at esa.int>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Moims-sc] FW: CESG-P-2024-06-001 Approval to release CCSDS 522.2-R-2, Mission Operations—Mission Data Product Distribution Services (Red Book, Issue 2) for CCSDS Agency review
Dear Tomaso,

Going back through my emails, I could not find any trace of exchanges with you with regard to the condition you had raised on the Mission Data Product Distribution Service.

Let me please start with apologizing for this oversight on our side and in case I have missed any emails.
We have resolved the condition of Peter and have his agreement to move forward with the agency review.

The point you had raised is very valid and needs better clarification, which we are happy to implement as below.
Please let us know if the following implementation would address sufficiently the condition you had raised:


  1.  Add text to clarify that only the data type definitions, contained in section 4 are normative: The tables and any associated requirements. The UML diagrams are only informative.
  2.  Remove comment relating to services - in an earlier version of the document the Information Model preceded the Service Specification but this was not edited.

Best Regards
Mehran (on behalf of the SM&C WG)


Dr. Mehran Sarkarati
Head of Ground Station Engineering Division
Department of Ground Systems Engineering and Innovation
Directorate of Operations

ESA – European Space Agency
ESOC I Robert-Bosch-Str. 5, 64293 Darmstadt, Germany
Tel: +49 6151 903225
mehran.sarkarati at esa.int<mailto:mehran.sarkarati at esa.int>    I   www.esa.int<https://urldefense.us/v3/__http:/www.esa.int__;!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!KzTxA1G1sKdOolRnT2hGzm8hn5mud5Gx7iCbQBZofbfIZD31cgXDuPzWGBVymxsGjti6wuWw_Z69OTXJmPwQu9g9b0Nn3ky6$>



This message is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. It may contain proprietary information and/or protected content. Any unauthorised disclosure, use, retention or dissemination is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately. ESA applies appropriate organisational measures to protect personal data, in case of data privacy queries, please contact the ESA Data Protection Officer (dpo at esa.int).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/moims-sc/attachments/20241028/2de14d8a/attachment-0001.htm>