[cssm] [EXTERNAL] Proposed additional agenda topic for the fall meetings -- SANA SSA registry review

[Shames, Peter M (US 312B)]

I’ll join you for this if I can.  My Thursday and Friday are slammed, but earlier in the week works.  And we can bring in the SANA guys too if you want.

That said, I suspect that the outcome of this is that we will need to engage the CESG , and really the CMC, in the update effort.

Thanks, Peter


From: SMWG <smwg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> on behalf of SMWG <smwg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Reply-To: Erik Barkley <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 11:11 AM
To: SMWG <smwg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [cssm] Proposed additional agenda topic for the fall meetings -- SANA SSA registry review

Dear CSSM Colleagues,

I have been poking around a bit in the SANA service sites and apertures registry and it seems to me that there is still a rather unfortunate lack of correct information in here. I mention this as the SSF (simple schedule format) comes up for a 5 year refresh next year (yes believe it or not it was published as a standard in 2018). One of the critiques that I continue to hear from the implementation of the standard at the DSN is that the SSF refers to the service sites and apertures registry as the proper source for identifying apertures in the schedule, but that the SSA registry does not really do this.  The lack of substantially correct or incomplete operational information in the SANA registry continues to impede the interoperability that the SSF should provide.  And, additionally, we have the CDE M-2 out for agency review, and it also directs the reader to look up aperture information in this SANA SSA registry. Of course, we cannot “fix” the service sites and apertures registry, but I believe it would be worthwhile to spend a bit of time at the Toulouse meetings to collect inputs for the CESG and CMC as to the nature of the updates that are needed for this registry.

Please do not hesitate let me know if you have any comments on this.

Best regards,
-Erik
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/smwg/attachments/20221006/6fc779f0/attachment.htm>