[Smwg] RE: Comments on draft Planning Data Formats (CCSDS 902.2-W-0.06)

Fri Jan 29 20:45:19 UTC 2016

Erik,
If I read your response, correctly, it sounds like you are saying that the provisional plan is for the future. However, that's the *only* thing that's called out in the current Planning Data Formats book. Methinks there's some straightening out of terminology that needs to be done.

Best regards,
John

From: Barkley, Erik J (3970) [mailto:erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov]
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 10:20 PM
To: John Pietras; Colin.Haddow at esa.int
Cc: CCSDS SMWG ML (smwg at mailman.ccsds.org)
Subject: RE: Comments on draft Planning Data Formats (CCSDS 902.2-W-0.06)

John,

Thanks for a good set of inputs.  I will just quickly note, that I think the time line business was probably predicated on that being stood up in the SE Area, but it has in fact never happened and I don't see any formal timeline effort happening in the foreseeable future.  So yes, this probably needs to be cleaned in both GB and this BB.

The plan for some time has been to have 2 issues of the planning book and you raise an interesting point as to whether this first issue of the planning data book needs to be "forward-looking" or not. My thinking is that standards really should only state what it is they truly define and if there is a bunch of future looking "vacuous" stuff such as the provisional plan which really won't exist until issue two of the planning data book then it should be removed.  It's absolutely fine for the concept book to have the full plan for what the future version will look like so in this case we can keep this information in the GB, but remove it from this BB.

Best regards,

-Erik

From: John Pietras [mailto:john.pietras at gst.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 8:44 AM
To: Colin.Haddow at esa.int<mailto:Colin.Haddow at esa.int>; Barkley, Erik J (3970) <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Cc: CCSDS SMWG ML (smwg at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:smwg at mailman.ccsds.org>) <smwg at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:smwg at mailman.ccsds.org>>
Subject: Comments on draft Planning Data Formats (CCSDS 902.2-W-0.06)

Colin and Erik,
Here are my  comments on the current draft of the Planning Data Formats book:

1.       Typo - the document number is listed as "920..." throughout, instead of the correct "902...". It looks like all of these document numbers are controlled from the "Document number" item in the Advanced Properties: Custom menu.

2.       The last sentence of 1.1.2.1 is unfinished - "Depending on the operational procedures of the Provider CSSS, the Provisional Plan"

3.       The reference to the Concept Green Book (1.8 [2]) needs to be updated the published version (no longer draft).

4.       This item affects the Concept Green Book as well as the Planning Data Formats. Erik may already be aware of these issues vis-à-vis the Concept Green Book and may be planning to address them issues in his update of that Green Book.

According to section 8.2 (c) of the Concept Green Book, the Planning Data Formats book was to specify 7 different Info Entities: Planning Request, Provisional Plan, Communications Geometry, Sustainable Data Rate and Volume Estimates, RFI, Resource Conflicts, and Cost Estimates. Discounting Planning Request (which will transfer to the SMURF book), this still leaves 6 different Info Entities within the covers of the Planning Data Formats book.

However, the Green Book goes on define the contents of the Provisional Plan as predicted communications geometry events, sustainable data rate and volume estimate events, predicted radio frequency interference events, predicted resource conflict events, and cost estimates - i.e. the content of the 6 other Info Entities. As it stands, the way the Concept Green Book is currently written, one could exchange, for example, communications geometry info via either the Provisional Plan Info Entity or the separate, dedicated Communications Geometry Info Entity.

The current Planning Data Formats White Book defines only one Info Entity, the Provisional Plan. At first glance it might appear that only the Provisional Plan IE is needed, since it contains the content of the other IEs. However, it's a bit more complicated than that (of course it is). The Provisional Plan is defined as being communicated from the Provider CSSS to the Mission. For the sustainable data rate and volume estimate events, predicted resource conflict events, and cost estimates, the associated IEs are also always generated by the Provider CSSS and communicated to the Mission, so those IEs could be simply folded into the Provisional Plan and discarded as separate IEs, which is what the current Planning Data book apparently does.

However, the Communications Geometry and RFI IEs can also be generated by the Mission and sent to the Provider CSSS. This is outside the scope of the Provisional Plan IE. To cover these cases, the Planning Data Formats book still needs to define separate Communications Geometry and RFI Info Entities.

One possible set of simplifications/re-organizations would be to (a) get rid of the separate Sustainable Data Rate and Volume Estimates, Resource Conflicts, and Cost Estimates Info Entities in the Concept Green Book, and fold their content into the Provisional Plan; (b) also include in the content of the Provisional Plan that of the Communications Geometry and RFI Info Entities; (c) keep the Communications Geometry and RFI Info Entities as separate Info Entities, but only for the purpose of conveying info from Missions to Provider CSSSes; and (d) add Communications Geometry and RFI Info Entity specifications to the Planning Data Formats book. That would cover all of the use cases envisioned by the Concept Green Book.

5.       Typo - in table 3-3, the reference to the Provisional Plan section of the Concept Green Book should be to section 5.4, not 5.3.

6.       The Concept Green Book states that the Provisional Plan (5.4), Communications Geometry (5.7), Sustainable Data Rate and Volume Estimates (5.8), RFI (5.9), Resource Conflicts (5.10), and Cost Estimates (5.11) are all "instantiation[s] of the Event Timeline stereotype, which is described in 6.4" of the Concept Green Book. There is no mention of an Event Timeline stereotype anywhere in the Planning Data Formats book. This stereotype was touted in the Concept Green Book at the extensibility mechanism for Planning Data Information Entities. If that is the case, then structure of the IEs in the Planning Data Formats book should reflect that. If not, then section 6.4 of the Concept Green Book and all references to it should be deleted.
Best regards,
John

________________________________

Spam<https://filter.gst.com/canit/b.php?i=01QbDjXaI&m=9564970a0753&c=s>
Not spam<https://filter.gst.com/canit/b.php?i=01QbDjXaI&m=9564970a0753&c=n>
Forget previous vote<https://filter.gst.com/canit/b.php?i=01QbDjXaI&m=9564970a0753&c=f>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/smwg/attachments/20160129/773e9865/attachment.html>