[Smwg] RE: Input from SE Area requested: Proposed updates to SoS SANA Registry section

[Barkley, Erik J (3970)]

Peter,

Thanks for the timely input.  Some comments in return are in the attached.

Best regards,

-Erik

From: Shames, Peter M (312B)
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 2:48 PM
To: Barkley, Erik J (3970); CCSDS Service Mgmt WG
Cc: Marc Blanchet (marc.blanchet at viagenie.ca)
Subject: Re: Input from SE Area requested: Proposed updates to SoS SANA Registry section

Hi Erik, et al,

Attached please find your text with some mark-ups.  See also the attached diagrams showing the proposed structures for organization, person, OID, spacecraft, and Site & Ground Station registries.

The biggest question for me in looking over your stuff is whether you want to persist in using names (even formal & registered ones) for sites, assets, and spacecraft, or whether you are willing to shift to using OIDs as unambiguous references?  If we do as proposed (and following your lead) adopt OIDs for every major org, person, site, service element, and antenna, then I wonder if you really want to continue using names?  I get that names are human readable, but they are nowhere near as convenient, and unambigous, as an OID.  Is it NASA / JPL or just JPL, or maybe JPL - CIT?

Or maybe you want both, names for convenience and OIDs to remove any possible ambiguity?

I am attaching the Site / GS and OID models here.  I'll send the whole wad of DRAFT models, with explanation, in a separate note.  These are evolving and are not yet fixed.  If you guys have changes or comments (like "THAT won't work") please let me know.  I'm also atached a "SCID registry relationships" model that tries to say how these various registries are connected.  It's not really correct (yet), but it should give you and idea of what I had in mind.  There would be, of course, a similar "Site and GS relationships" model, maybe I'll sketch that next.

Thanks, Peter


From: Erik Barkley <Erik.J.Barkley at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:Erik.J.Barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Date: Monday, June 22, 2015 at 11:44 AM
To: Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Cc: SMWG <smwg at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:smwg at mailman.ccsds.org>>, Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet at viagenie.ca<mailto:marc.blanchet at viagenie.ca>>
Subject: Input from SE Area requested: Proposed updates to SoS SANA Registry section

Peter,

Attached please find the SANA registries considerations section extracted from the current scheduling of services blue book candidate with the proposed modifications that I believe are consistent with the newly emerging SANA registry policy.  Colin and I had a teleconference this morning and I believe the changes indicated in the attached represent our consensus as to how to proceed with the registry updates. Track changes has been turned on so you can see what the differences are. Please note that there are eight editorial notes listed in bracketed italic font which indicate various implications as a result of having updated the verbiage to match the emerging policy. Your comments with regard to those notes that have an effect on registry definitions or merit consideration from overall registry management will be much appreciated at your earliest convenience.

Best regards,
-Erik

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/smwg/attachments/20150624/bbfcf674/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: d0-SOS-SANAConsiderationsRevisions-22-Jun-2015-SEA-eb.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 32445 bytes
Desc: d0-SOS-SANAConsiderationsRevisions-22-Jun-2015-SEA-eb.docx
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/smwg/attachments/20150624/bbfcf674/attachment.docx>