[Smwg] Response to CSSMWG Action Item 2015-0113-5

[John Pietras]

Erik and CSSMWG colleagues -
I have a few comments on Erik's standard header vs. information entity analysis. In response to AI #2015-0113-5,  Review Erik's standard header vs information entities analysis spreadsheet and provide comments, here they are:

1.       Erik questioned the interpretation of 'originatingOrganization'  for the Service Agreement, and whether it should accommodate multiple parties. We could do that, but an alternative interpretation might be to treat it as "the organization that possesses the definitive version of the document." The SA is of course negotiated between the Provider CSSS and the Mission, but once that's done I think the Provider CSSS is the "keeper" of the ratified document. That concept is consistent with the way we treated the QSA in Blue-1: UM queries CM, not the other way around. Info Entity-specific data can identify the parties (Provider CSSS and Mission) that mutually entered into the agreement.

2.       Regarding the Trajectory Prediction Segment info entity, we had discussed the possibility of negotiating with the NavWG to get all of the info that we need included in the NDM schemas, and as I recall David Berry is amenable to such a discussion because the affected Nav books are coming up for review. If we could achieve that we would automatically eliminate the multiple "(perhaps conflict with NDM)" comments in Erik's listing. We should consider a joint session CSSMWG/NavWG at next month's meeting to discuss possible convergence within the NDM and ODM books.

3.       Regarding the Service Package Execution Event Notification Info Entity, I think the questions about version, startTime and endTime reflect the fundamentally different nature of this form the other Info Entities. By its nature, a notification is tied to the moment that it is generated. Another change in circumstances can result in another notification being issued, but I don't see that as being a different version of the same notification. I have said in the past that I think of this notification as an operation (message)  in the to-be-defined Service Package Service.  Rather than try to warp the notions of Info Entity version, startTime and endTime so that they can accommodate this entity, we might consider demoting it from stand-alone Info Entity status and bookmark it for coverage in the future automation book (along with things like service package request failures and service package replacements, cancellations, deletions, etc.)

Well, that's all I have. Talk to you tomorrow.

John

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/smwg/attachments/20150209/a273ba0b/attachment.html>