[Smwg] Email documenting discussion towards closure of AI 2015-0325-2

[Barkley, Erik J (3970)]

Jessica,

I think this is fine.  I read the 3rd paragraph as essentially book keeping.  In general, I think we have another instance of the "loose-leaf binder" approach if/when the NAVWG defines a new type of trajectory data format.

Best regards,

-Erik

From: smwg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org [mailto:smwg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] On Behalf Of Reinert, Jessica (GRC-LSA0)
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2015 9:10 AM
To: CCSDS Service Mgmt WG (smwg at mailman.ccsds.org)
Subject: [Smwg] Email documenting discussion towards closure of AI 2015-0325-2

Greetings,

As a part of the May 5 telecom, we discussed whether or not the bilateralTrajectorySegment class should be explicitly defined as a subclass within the TrajectoryPredictionInformation. During the spring meeting two options had been proposed: either retaining this subclass or just mentioning the potential use of a bilaterally agreed upon format in place of the defined ccsdsTrajectorySegment.

During the telecom I believe it was agreed that we should go with the latter option of mentioning the use of a bilateral trajectory segment within the text, but not defining the class. The standard header trajectoryPredictionInformation and the Service Management Standard Header are still required if a bilaterally agreed upon format is used.

There is a potential that new CCSDS Standard Trajectory segments will be defined by the Navigation Data Group, in addition to those currently defined, the use of a bilaterally agreed upon format will be mentioned in the document when this potential is mentioned.

Any suggestions or clarification regarding this matter are appreciated.

Regards,

Jessica


Jessica Reinert
Systems Definition and Communications Branch
NASA Glenn Research Center
Phone: 216-433-6249

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/smwg/attachments/20150505/54bd5fe7/attachment.html>