[cssm] CSSM Spring 2020 Virtual 1 meeting notes

Barkley, Erik J (US 3970) erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov
Mon May 4 20:40:03 UTC 2020

CSSM Colleagues,

Below are my note from today's Webex.  Comments, corrections are welcome.  These notes will be consolidated into a meeting summary after our virtual meetings week to be posted as part of the meetings material.

Best regards,

1.    Attendees
Monday, May 4 Webex:

E. Barkley, C. Ciocirlan, A. Crowson, M. Gnat, C. Haddow, H. Kelliher, J. Pietras, M. Unal

2.    TGFT RID Dispositions

  1.  Dispositions agreed to for all RIDs
  2.  Book updates as a result of RID dispositions discussed at the meeting
     *   Agreed that fail-over specification is not part of TGFT service definition and is subject to negotiation/agreement by implementing parties
     *   A package-level sensitivity meta-data item is to be added -- for implementing parties to agree to sensitivity level definitions and to provide specific indication
     *   A general applicability statement of some sort will be provided to indicate the general intention for routine, not stupendously large, transfer of files

                                                               i.      essentially an acknowledgment that the very large DDOR files are likely not a good candidate for TGFT usage

     *   Some sort of statement with regards to practical size considerations will be added to the book based on prototyping results which were carried out with files up to 250 MB -- essentially this is the largest at which we can claim this has been tested successfully without engaging in further (currently unfunded) prototyping efforts

                                                               i.      note that this could be changed if as part of early agency implementation some sort of specific size test were conducted

  1.  Update plan calls for C. Haddow to send the agency review red book copy to J. Pietras for some minor editorial fixup and then for C. Haddow to conclude the updates

3.    SACP vs FRM Discussion

  1.  There was a general discussion on the configuration profile vs the functional resource model
  2.  J. Pietras has provided a presentation (to be shared with the WG) as to a possible convergence approach
  3.  Some agreement that operational implementations do not really need to know about the FRM "wiring" and that the FRM and configuration profile may in fact have somewhat different purposes
     *   But also general agreement that FRM is necessary for the CSS Area in general
  4.  Suggested that agency implementations be surveyed to look at practical considerations re construction of configuration profiles

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/smwg/attachments/20200504/182d2605/attachment.htm>

More information about the SMWG mailing list