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

Shames, Peter M (312B) peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov
Wed Jun 24 22:57:42 UTC 2015

Hi Erik,

I think we are on the same page here, or at least are edging closer.   In the proposed mods to the existing registries I showed how we could, in fact, add attributes like "service provider" to an organization entry and I proposed an OID structure that defines that role.  I think we need to have both your SM WG guys, and the SANA guys, vet that and either agree to use it or propose an alternative.  My belief is that we need that review and analysis.

Most of the questions in your added notes seem to be of the "when will it be ready?" form.  Since the key registries (orgs, people, spacecraft) already exist I think the answer is "as soon as you guys sign off on it and as soon as the SANA team cranks the numbers into the right fields.  Some (but not all) of those key numbers are OIDs.  We have an OID registry.  I think we can extend this pretty quickly if/when we can get your crew and the SANA guys to sign off on (or fix) what has been proposed.

I think we do need to go through a more formal CCSDS doc update and review process, but in the meanwhile we can create some provisional registries that have all of these features.  It's sort of up to Marc and co to say whether this can work, if it is viable based on available resources, and when it might be mocked up.  I think for this purpose that even if we just had provisional registries for now we would be in good shape for rolling this out for external review.

We can make this a long drawn out process or just get on with it.  I'd prefer, with some amount of deliberation, to just get on with it.  IMHO almost anything that we do after some thought will be better than what we have now.

As for the RF Asset registry, after thinking about it some more I suggest that we just ask the RF Asset people to add an OID (that we provide) to their registry.  We should also ask for access, and I think they should allow it, but that is up to them.  I asked Marc and his team about this yesterday, but have not yet heard back from him.  But again, after some thought, I think you CSS (SM & CSTS) guys may well need your own registry where you define the service aspects, as opposed to the physical aspects (diameter, etc) of these antennas, the ground station sites, and other service sites that do not have GS but still offer services (of different kinds).  I proposed a Site and Ground Station registry that I believe covers all of these topics.  I'd like to get your guys to take a look at this and see if it fits your needs.  As I understand it a lot of what you are building in the SLE and CSTS OID tree has to do with classification and type.  I think that the instances of elements that get tagged with those types belong in the Site & GS registry, or at least that is how I envision it.

Is this right or did you guys have something else in mind?

Regards, Peter

From: Erik Barkley <Erik.J.Barkley at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:Erik.J.Barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Date: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 5:38 PM
To: Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>>, SMWG <smwg at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:smwg at mailman.ccsds.org>>
Cc: Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet at viagenie.ca<mailto:marc.blanchet at viagenie.ca>>
Subject: RE: Input from SE Area requested: Proposed updates to SoS SANA Registry section


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

Best regards,


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<mailto: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


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,

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/smwg/attachments/20150624/375f65a6/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OID Proposal 22Jun15.pptx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.presentationml.presentation
Size: 3175111 bytes
Desc: OID Proposal 22Jun15.pptx
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/smwg/attachments/20150624/375f65a6/attachment.pptx>

More information about the SMWG mailing list