[Smwg] 902x9-w0.05 - Service Management Utilization Request Formats - Updated draft

Colin.Haddow at esa.int Colin.Haddow at esa.int
Wed Mar 14 14:57:58 UTC 2018

Dear all, 
                  I've just uploaded the latest draft of the Service 
Management Utilization Request Formats to CWE, This contains the updates 
discussed at San Antonio and Den Haag. I've also uploaded the updated UML 
model and Schemas.. The following points should be noted;

None of the Annexes are written yet. As this ICS in particular will be a 
pain for this I'm planning on leaving that until the rest of the 
recommendation is pretty stable.
There are a number of dependencies on structures that will be defined in 
other books, viz. ConfigurationProfileContents, EventSeqeunce, and 
ServicePackage. I've written some dummy placeholders for them
The Trajectory class is also a place holder at the moment as I need to do 
a bit more work on it.
There are a number of items which probably should be moved into the 
Service Management Common Data Entities book as they will probably be 
useful elsewhere in SM
There is a dependency on the PIF and again it would probably make sense to 
move this from the PIF into the Service Management Common Data Entities 
Included is a first pass at the time windows concept JP brought up at Den 
Haag. I'm not completely happy with this at the moment for the reasons 
below, the following figure and diagram show the current definition of the 
TimeWindows class;

Table 3-40: Class TimeWindow Parameters
Data Type
Data Units
If true indicates that the time range specified by the window is 
considered to be included.
If false indicates that the time range specified by the window is 
considered to be included.
Used to specify (in UTC) the start time of the window.
CCSDS ASCII Time Code B (reference [3])
Used to specify (in UTC) the end time of the window.
CCSDS ASCII Time Code B (reference [3])

What I'm not clear on is the meaning of the "includeWindow" flag. As it 
stands we could have in a "time windows set" some time windows that are 
"included" and some which are "excluded". In this case what happens to 
time ranges that are not included or excluded, i.e.

           t1----------------------------t2   t3--------------------t4

lets say that the window t1 -> t2 is included and t3 -> t4 is excluded, 
what about the time range from t2 -> t3.

Would it make more sense to move the include flag to the TimeWindow class 
?, in that case it would mean that all specified time windows would either 
be included (i.e. would represent time that services should be scheduled 
in) or excluded (i.e. would represent times that service should not be 
scheduled in).

To be discussed.

Also included in the Schemas is a very simple request example. There is 
more work needed on the examples but as I'm not going to have any time to 
do this before the next WebEx I thought it was as well to upload things 
just now.

The  Service Management Utilization Request Format document, model and 
schemas can be found at the following URLs. 




Cheers for now, 


Dr. Colin R. Haddow,
HSO-GI, European Space Agency,
European Space Operations Centre,
Robert-Bosch-Str 5,
64293 Darmstadt,

Phone; +49 6151 90 2896
Fax;      +49 6151 90 3010
E-Mail;  colin.haddow at esa.int

This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee or addressees only.
The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in whole or in part) of its
content is not permitted.
If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system.
Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the sender.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/smwg/attachments/20180314/009e5638/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 39275 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/smwg/attachments/20180314/009e5638/attachment.gif>

More information about the SMWG mailing list