[cssm] CSSM standards matrix -- draft(y) table

[Marcin.Gnat at dlr.de]

Dear all,

I finally managed to come to collect my thought on this. The table itself is neat collection, but does not provide the level of "meta-information" to the users, to be more than a merely a list of contents. I think that something more "graphical" along the lines of what Erik attached below is more of value. And so I see also, that the combination of the roadmap and the lifecycle diagram could help understanding the thing. That way we could say at "Level 1" there is a specific location and a way the process should take place. Below I created quickly two examples:

LEVEL 1

[cid:image001.png at 01DBA7A9.4A293DD0]

The not covered section of the lifecycle, could have following content:

[cid:image005.png at 01DBA7A9.4A293DD0]

Similarly we could do this for all different levels as provided in a roadmap.

Cheers
Marcin


From: SMWG <smwg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> On Behalf Of Barkley, Erik J (US 3970) via SMWG
Sent: Mittwoch, 19. März 2025 01:47
To: CCSDS Service Mgmt WG <smwg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: [cssm] CSSM standards matrix -- draft(y) table

CSSM colleagues,

Following up from the teleconference earlier today, I took a quick stab at drafting what a matrix for the various standards versus their implementation level might start to look like.  The different levels have not had much thinking but rather just some quick notes to convey the idea of what the overall table might look like. Some comments on this approach:


  1.  I think there actually would have to be some analysis to properly fill in the different levels - particularly for the SACP - e.g., level 1 = basic service level agreement parameters?
  2.  It does not necessarily seem to be the most useful to have level 3 all culminating in API - its seems that could be factored out as a common step for pretty much all of the recommendations.
  3.  As tabular format focused on the different levels for the recommendations, it does not convey an overall functional build-out for the overall service management life-cycle (the diagram from the green book is shown below for the lifecycle) - it seems that maybe we might want some combination of reference road map, taking into account the  service management life-cycle?

In any case a draft spreadsheet is attached, and below is a slightly enhanced version of the roadmap slide from today's teleconference and the GB lifecycle service management.  It seems that both approaches (table and roadmap) have their issues.  Suggests and thoughts welcome.

Best regards,
-Erik


[cid:image006.jpg at 01DBA7A9.4A293DD0]




[cid:image004.png at 01DBA7A6.B3F9E4B0]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/smwg/attachments/20250407/1f7b91d7/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 106356 bytes
Desc: image004.png
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/smwg/attachments/20250407/1f7b91d7/attachment-0003.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 77093 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/smwg/attachments/20250407/1f7b91d7/attachment-0004.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.png
Type: image/png
Size: 9597 bytes
Desc: image005.png
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/smwg/attachments/20250407/1f7b91d7/attachment-0005.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image006.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 59532 bytes
Desc: image006.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/smwg/attachments/20250407/1f7b91d7/attachment-0001.jpg>