[MOIMS] Re: [CESG] Draft CESG private report to CMC

Mon Dec 6 17:30:06 UTC 2004

This is only for your information.

Please don't distribute it further.
ciao
nestor

----- Forwarded by Nestor Peccia/esoc/ESA on 06/12/2004 18:29 -----

                      Peter Shames                                                                                                   
                      <peter.shames at jpl.n         To:      "Adrian J. Hooke" <Adrian.J.Hooke at jpl.nasa.gov>                           
                      asa.gov>                    cc:      Peter Shames <peter.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>, CCSDS Engineering Steering      
                      Sent by:                    Group - ADs <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>                                               
                      cesg-bounces at mailma         Subject: Re: [CESG] Draft CESG private report to CMC                               
                      n.ccsds.org                                                                                                    

                      06/12/2004 18:25                                                                                               

Adrian,

Pardon my own personal bias, but your report to the CESG is not very
balanced.  I am particularly responding to pg 5, which seems to say all
the things that other areas (and you) find objectionable with System
Engineering, RASDS, and Security, without saying anything about the
positive things we have accomplished nor the support, if qualified,
that was expressed during the CESG meeting and was evident in the WG
reports.

Architecture and Security are indeed pervasive and CCSDS has given them
short shrift for years.  We now have an Area that is focused upon them
and are learning how to work across and with other areas.  System
Engineering is never an easy task, since it does cut across all other
areas of work.  We are also the newest area and are still learning how
best to interact with the other Areas and WGs.

Speaking on behalf of the SEA and the WGs:

- CCSDS has never had any common architectural views or
representations, we now are producing one that is consistent with best
industry recommendations and practices (ISO 10746 Information
technology -- Open Distributed Processing -- Reference model (RM-ODP),
and IEEE-Std-1471-2000 Recommended Practice for Architectural
Description of Software-Intensive Systems).  The SAWG is getting
support from systems architecture experts from four agencies and the
RASDS has been extremely well received by our system architecture peers
in other organizations.

- The major specific issue with RASDS raised during CESG discussion is
that protocol representations that are currently being recommended do
not align with current practice in the SIS and SLS working groups.  We
have had some follow up discussions and will be adopting conventions
that align with the ISO 7498, Open Systems Interconnection: Basic
reference Model (ISO-BRM).  There was similar mention of the need for
better service interface definitions and to the extent that we can
align with RM - ODP and ISO-BRM we will do so.

- Members of the CESG expressed strong support for having the RASDS as
a standard, not just a BCP, and also said that they thought that it was
useful.  They also variously said that it was both too comprehensive
and not specific enough.  These divergent responses suggest that we are
near the "sweet spot", but that we need a simpler (or clearer) high
level view and a more detailed formal spec.  We are determined to
produce both.  What is needed is additional resources and better
integration of the excellent work that ESA is doing into the rest of
the process.

- We used to have a very ad hoc Security WG, we now have one with
modest resources, mostly provided by JPL and BNSC, which is moving
ahead and providing support to other WGs.  This Wg is producing
documents that are getting a good review from other groups.  The
fundamental message here needs to be that this WG needs resources from
other agencies if it is to be able to carry out its work and provide
support to other WGs, which is what the other WGs requested.

- MOIMS feels that the Information Architecture work belongs in its
Area.  But MOIMS has not done any work like this in its history and
either does not have the expertise nor does it appear to have the
interest.  During discussion in the CESG there did not appear to be a
willingness in MOIMS to guarantee that this work would proceed as
planned if it were to be ttransfered.  The recent MOIMS standards that
are related, OAIS and PAIMAS, which appear to be well received in the
archival community, are largely procedural.  They tell organizations
what they need to do in order to do archival processing and provide
some guidelines about how to structure data interchanges.  However,
none of them provide any guidance about how to actually construct such
systems, no technical architecture nor abstract interfaces.  The IPR WG
in MOIMS has responsibility for Registries, but has so far focused upon
packaging, i.e. information content description, which has been the
traditional technical focus in Panel 2.

- In contrast, the work that the IAWG has been doing is specifically
aimed at defining such a technical Information Management architecture.
  it is abstract initially, but will need to become less abstract and
more concrete once it is reviewed and accepted.  The work has been
reviewed with technical experts in the US in a number of different
communities, including GRID computing, the National Virtual
Observatory, and others.  It is also well aligned with current
technical developments in the international web services community.  In
technical discussions with members of the IPR there was expression of
support for the current directions that this work was going, in
particular the use of UML to model these services and interfaces.  The
IAWG (which now has support from two agencies) wishes to work with the
IPR, but there does not appear to be a good argument for combining
these efforts at this time.

- In all of these efforts the SEA WGs, and the Area itself, are
interested in working with the other WGs.  In a number of cases this
has been successful already, even at this early stage of development of
this new System Engineering Area.  In order to make this a success we
first need to solidify the present work.  In order to do this we need
resources from other agencies besides those that are currently engaged.
  Given the available resources in the Area, if we turn our efforts to
working with other WGs at this point we will fail to accomplish the
technical specification work that has been agreed to.  An alternative
approach might be for the other WGs that have architectural description
requirements to send those people to work with our small, but talented,
cadre of experts.  This also has the effect of broadening the "gene
pool" of people who understand these methodologies and of infusing this
methodology into other groups.

Please consider making this report more balanced and providing the
recommendations that resources be provided to get the work done.  Your
current version reads like a rejection of the work that has been done.
While there were clearly issues, most particularly with the IAWG / IPR
interface, the strong impression that I had from the CESG was that
there was support for this work and a desire to have it be both
standardized and infused.  None of this comes across in your summary
report.

Regards, Peter

On Dec 3, 2004, at 1:22 PM, Adrian J. Hooke wrote:

> Please find the attached draft (03 December) of the CESG private
> report to the CMC meeting at CNES next Wednesday, 08 December.
>
> If you find anything grossly wrong then I shall have a brief
> opportunity to make any final corrections on Monday when I am in
> Toulouse.
>
> You can also find the PPT and PDF versions on Docushare:
>
> http://www.ccsds.org/docu/dscgi/ds.py/View/Collection-642
>
> Best regards
> Adrian
> <CESG-Rep-to-CMC22
> -03Dec04.pdf>_______________________________________________
> CESG mailing list
> CESG at mailman.ccsds.org
> http://mailman.ccsds.org/mailman/listinfo/cesg
>
_______________________________________________________

Peter Shames
Manager - JPL Information Systems Standards Program
InterPlanetary Network and Information Systems Directorate
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, MS 301-265
California Institute of Technology
Pasadena, CA 91109 USA

Telephone: +1 818 354-5740,  Fax: +1 818 393-1333

Internet:  Peter.Shames at jpl.nasa.gov
________________________________________________________
"We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring
will be to arrive at where we started, and know the place for the first
time"

                      T.S. Eliot
_______________________________________________
CESG mailing list
CESG at mailman.ccsds.org
http://mailman.ccsds.org/mailman/listinfo/cesg