[Sea-sa] Spreadsheets for next week's SAWG meetings

Shames, Peter M (US 312B) peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov
Fri May 8 20:42:37 UTC 2020

Dear SAWG,

As you will have seen, we have a number of inputs from both the CESG review, and from feedback from other WG experts, that I think we need to process.  In order to make the job easier for all of us I asked Ramon and Roger to use a common spreadsheet to record the feedback from the primary responses for their sections.  I agreed to tackle the CESG responses, those that were more global in nature, and the ones that were directed at security topics.

I have uploaded three spreadsheets to the CWE ASL review folder (see below for link):

  1.  CESG Poll issue resolution global – SecWG 371x0g1 3May20, which contains the CESG and security inputs
  2.  CESG Poll issue resolution Dan Smith 371x0g1 6May20, which contains Dan Smith's inputs
  3.  CESG Poll issue resolution David Berry 371x0g1 7May20, which contains David Berry's inputs

Ramon has uploaded his own spreadsheet with the inputs from the three SOIS reviewers.

With these four sets of inputs I think we have all of the inputs that we must address at this point.  There are a number of issues that have been brought up.  Many of them are easy to resolve, some are quite "thorny".  And there is apparently a discussion under way within MOIMS SM&C that may cause major shifts in those standards.  I wish to leave that "tectonic shift" aside for the moment, unless we think we have a really good understanding of where the fallout will land.

Included in the CESG input there is a set of PIDs from Erik Barkley that we must address.  We (somewhat foolishly in retrospect) adopted an approach of splitting this document along MOIMS Area and SOIS Area boundaries.  This was convenient and "obvious", but led to some peculiar discussions at certain points.  But, Erik correctly pointed out, no other CCSDS documents, not even the SCCS-ADD that the ASL was aligned to, focus on organizational boundaries, CCSDS Areas and WGs, they always align with functional groupings and OSI layers.  Accordingly I am agreeing with Erik that we should do the same in this document, and that means adopting functional groupings of "mission operations" functions and "spacecraft onboard" functions.  We can then talk about the migration of certain mission operations functions into the onboard environment.  Whether that is done by re-implementation, or porting of software, or migration of a whole MO "ecosystem" becomes a set of implementation choices.  This also clears up issues of whether MOIMS "owns" Time Management.  Time Management, being standardized in a rather new SEA WG, is developing and will provide these mission operations standards, not any part of the MOIMS Area.  They are still "mission operations" functions.

Please review the whole set of spreadsheets, and the proposed resolutions, in preparation for the working meeting on Tuesday.

Thanks, Peter

ASL Review folder
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sea-sa/attachments/20200508/b6ad7f28/attachment.htm>

More information about the SEA-SA mailing list