[cssm] Service management levels

Marcin.Gnat at dlr.de Marcin.Gnat at dlr.de
Wed Feb 26 12:38:55 UTC 2025


Well I was not seein "current implementations" as any level in context of CSS SM. Current implementations may have their own levels as well, so I do not think we should walk that path too far (danger! Snakes!). So for me, current implementation is current implementation, and CSS SM may have on "its" implementation different levels (if we start with "0" and count up, or start with "1" and count up, I'm fine with both - maybe even calling "basic" level the level 1 sounds just better - "0" sounds a bit like "nothing" or "it can't be worse").

Cheers
Marcin

From: SMWG <smwg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> On Behalf Of Barkley, Erik J (US 3970) via SMWG
Sent: Donnerstag, 13. Februar 2025 21:01
To: CCSDS Service Mgmt WG <smwg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: [cssm] Service management levels

CSSM Colleagues,

Thinking a bit more about the different service management levels, it occurs to me that maybe we don't want to call the most essential CCSDS interoperability service management specifications "level 0", but really rather "level 1" (level one). It occurs to me that our various organizations already have service management implementations and in fact really level 0 (level zero) could be used as reference to current inter-operations whereby interoperability is  bilaterally negotiated. I guess it is a question of whether or not we want to draw this contrast. If we do then perhaps calling current implementations level -1 (i.e. level negative/minus one) is not such a good idea.  And I think at some point we will probably need to make such a contrast. I realize this is essentially just semantics, and not anything that really affects what we are working toward with the best practices, but I think it is a consideration in how to present this to the various implementing organizations.  Any thoughts on this?

Best regards,
-Erik
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/smwg/attachments/20250226/f47bda70/attachment.htm>


More information about the SMWG mailing list