[cssm] [EXTERNAL] Updates:- Service Management Common data Entities Book, SMURF Book, UML Model, XML Schema.

Colin.Haddow at esa.int Colin.Haddow at esa.int
Fri Jul 23 07:58:36 UTC 2021


Hi Wes,
                yes that would make sense, if srvPkgReqVersion is removed 
from the SMURF request there is no sensible way in which it could be used 
in the SPDF.

Cheers for now,

Colin


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

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




From:   "Eddy, Wesley M. (GSFC-580.0)[MTI SYSTEMS, INC.]" 
<wesley.m.eddy at nasa.gov>
To:     "Colin.Haddow at esa.int" <Colin.Haddow at esa.int>, "CCSDS Service Mgmt 
WG" <smwg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Cc:     "Wolfgang.Frase at dlr.de" <Wolfgang.Frase at dlr.de>
Date:   22/07/2021 14:56
Subject:        RE: [EXTERNAL] [cssm] Updates:- Service Management Common 
data Entities Book, SMURF Book, UML Model, XML Schema.



On the point below about srvPkgReqVersion, I think we would additionally 
remove the corresponding serviceReqVersion attribute from the 
ServicePkgBody in the SPDF.
 
From: SMWG <smwg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> On Behalf Of 
Colin.Haddow at esa.int
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2021 5:55 AM
To: CCSDS Service Mgmt WG <smwg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Cc: Wolfgang.Frase at dlr.de
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [cssm] Updates:- Service Management Common data 
Entities Book, SMURF Book, UML Model, XML Schema.
 
? 

One point for discussion at the next telecon. At the last telecon 
(13/07/2021) we agreed to make the srvPkgReqVersion parameter of the 
ServicePkgReq class in the SMURF optional. On going through Marcins notes 
from the SMURF prototyping test report I found that Marcin, Anthony and I 
had discussed deleting this parameter completely. I think that this is 
actually a better solution and recommend, unless someone has got a really 
good reason for keeping it, that we delete the srvPkgReqVersion parameter. 





This message is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. It may contain proprietary information and/or
protected content. Any unauthorised disclosure, use, retention or dissemination is prohibited. If you have received
this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately. ESA applies appropriate organisational measures to protect
personal data, in case of data privacy queries, please contact the ESA Data Protection Officer (dpo at esa.int).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/smwg/attachments/20210723/fbb58e2f/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the SMWG mailing list