CSSM Meeting Summary CCSDS CSSM Technical Meetings Pasadena, CA USA 23 – 27 March 2015

Agenda & Coverage at Meeting Conclusion All topics addressed; Also briefly addressed Management services

Simple Schedule of Services Finalization Recommendation updated during the meeting to include Standard header definition worked out Addition of request reference Schema updates in progress

Standard Header Analysis Conclusion srvMgtMessageType (m) Mandatory; values governed by Annex SoS BB originatingOrganization (m) Mandatory – for those information entities that “wrap” other CCSDS formats this indicates the party doing the wrapping generationTime (m) Mandatory – for those information entities that “wrap” other CCSDS formats this indicate the time of wrapping status (m) [IES] Mandatory – each information entity recommendation defines the values to use version (m) [IES] Mandatory – each information entity recommendation defines the values to use startTime (o) [IES] Optional – each information entity indicates if used endTime (o) [IES] Optional – each information entity indicates if used purpose (o) Optional – a general comment field for all CSSM information entities description (o) Optional a general comment field for all CSSM information entities

Service Package Request Functional Components Model White-board engineering discussions; derived an outline, taking into account London sketch for Service Request and draft Planing Request; see result on next slide See CWE Spring 2015 meetings folder for further details. Note – even though this says service package request, this is really about the abstract service request with application to planning and service package requests

Fwd Offline eSLS Retrieval Offline Retrieval Offline Planning Flexibilities and Constraints Config Modifier Set/Scenario Flexibilities and Constraints Config Modifier Flexibilities and Constraints Config Modifier Set/Scenario Flexibilities and Constraints Config Modifier Output Type Configuration Profile Referential Framework ABSTRACT SERVICE REQUEST : AGREED (META) MODEL AT CONCLUSION OF DISCUSSIONS Currently only Planning has “two” possible type of outputs, but all requests have an output type. Output Type Identification This allows for the option of referencing a profile or defining it within the request. Currently we have not identified an application for this component for “offline” types but could be applied for those types and other types if it becomes relevant. Set/Scenario Flex/Constr may reference the request or service they apply to …

Joint Meeting with DDOR WG Reviewed the DDOR WG concept of a service request Agreed to take an action to look at DDOR service request material and determine how this maps to the CSSM recommendations Follow-up with DDOR WG

Configuration Profile/Service Agreement (1/3) Reviewed Tech Note on Service component vs IOAG service definition See tech note for more detail: SM/Meeting%20Materials/2015/Spring/ServiceComponentsInServiceProfiles_ TechNote-TN-0x03-d docx

Configuration Profile/Service Agreement (2/3) Approach to combine service components into service profiles… Forward Data Delivery Return Data Delivery Tracking/Radiometric Data Delivery To be worked: How are these Captured? SANA?

Configuration Profile/Service Agreement (3/3) …And service components into service profiles into Service Agreement, Configuration Profile Recommendations* * and likely applicability for Service Catalog and strong relation to SC-CSTS and MD-CSTS

Terrestrial Generic File Transfer (TGFT) Reviewed concept presentation from C. Haddow Made decisions for advancing draft recommendation, including Assume DMZ configuration? Yes WebDAV for protocol ? Yes Use of Zip? Yes Use of XFDU? Yes Discussed other issue with preliminary decision indicated as follows Push vs Pull operations: Allow both or restrict? Restrict to push only as a first cut for review Rationale: Simplifies recommendation, less options left for ICD negotiations; WG membership inputs requested (canvassing of agency operations) Filename case sensitivity – an issue in that file systems (largely OS dependent) vary re case sensitivity and case preservation; decision pending but it seems that all upper case filenames is the least likely to cause problems (albeit at the expensive readability for humans)

Joint Session, CSTS + CSSM WGs (1/2) SC-CSTS (Service Control) and CSSM-ES (Event sequences) Functional resource model has been updated to include “setable” parameters – essentially “directives” Event sequences are pre-planned set of setable changes, but are defined via a communications service state model OID definitions are not currently in the event sequences Likely that SC-CSTS takes precedence over event sequence Question of whether or not SC-CSTS takes over the pre-planned event sequence completely or “returns” to pre-planned event sequence Stating semantics properly for this will need to be studied if “simple” semantics are not assumed – ie, once an SC-CSTS “directive” issued event sequence no longer applies Does SC-CSTS need a service profile in the configuration profile to be referenced by a service package request or assumed to be part of service package by default Also, how does this relate to the configuration profile book and its service profile approach? How does this fit with service accounting? Event sequences have numbered states to facilitate post-pass accounting AD to coordinate follow on sessions with members of CSTS and CSSM WGSs

Joint Session, CSTS + CSSM WGs (2/2) New Services disucssion Forward Frame service definition – agreed to use definition derived from CSA Requirements document (not IOAG svc catalog) AD to work on use case idenitification for forward and return file Service Noted that W. Hell is working on consideration for off-line radiometric data transfer service, leveraging TGFT

Trajectory Prediction Re Editorial question from London Meetings: will there ever be a need for mixing bi-lateral and CCSDS standard trajectory prediction formats? No. Any mixing is by definition bi-lateral and to be treated as such Reviewed presentation provided by J. Reinert – see meetings material folder in CWE Agreed to bi-lateral format identifier for bi-lateral extension point WG, please confirm Worked on standard header parameters for T.P. information entity Agreed that timestamps/originator apply to when “wrapping function” was applied (ie., TDM or other bi-lateral “payload” retains its definition and meaning for any similar meta-data items) (see standard data header analysis for more information) Schema development/“ownership” – both J. Reinert and J. Pietras

Event Sequences Reviewed presentation material provided by P. Pechkam – see meetings material in CWE Draft book is available Discussed use of start-time/end-time wrt to standard header – can now be defined directly for this information entity as needed (see standard header slide) Noted that communication geometry related event sequence state transitions are not captured in functional model and do not have counter parts in SC-CSTS Ie., mode-changes – 1-way to 2-way to 3-way communication

XML Schema Namespace Reviewed namespace organization on per information entity basis Action to C. Haddow to suggest division of namespace for common schema components How many divisions are needed and what are some likely notional names? Don’t think this was captured in the official action item list

Joint Engineering Session with CSTS WG Functional Resource model In general functional model appears to be a good input for SE Area ontology work Noted that a annotation for a directive parameters for functional resources should be able to address such situations as EIRP offset (which can not really be commanded for the ground station, but is something the ground station should be aware of) Current (beta) registry in SANA does not have the settable (“directive”) side of the functional resources Update pending that will provide this OIDs will be versioned – last position of the OID is the version number Action item (but best efforts basis only) to provide an overview diagram showing how functional resource model is managed for the CSS Area including engineering maintenance and release to SANA for registered models If possible, by the time of the fall 2015 meetings Action to J. Pietras. H. Dreihan, and…?

Inter-Recommendation Tracking Updated the Class, Model and Document numbers tabs and cleaned up the spreadsheet The File Transfer, Ground Segment Profile document number was added Class Folder was to the Inter-Recommendation Folder To be a repository for the Class Diagrams C. Haddow to add the finalized SoS and Standard Header to this folder Model Folder (for other than info entity class diagrams) added to the Inter- Recommendation Folder to be a repository for the Models M. Gnatt’s document model was moved to this folder Please use this folder for your models called out in the Inter- Recommendation Spreadsheet Folder is located in CWE at: %2FCSS-SM%2FCWE%20Private%2FInter-recommendation%20Spreadsheet

Prototype Planning Communication Geometry Potential agencies identified are CNES (output), DLR (output), ESA (input – request/output), NASA/GSFC (output) and NASA/JPL (output) K. Tuttle has agreed to be the test report lead for this prototype Trajectory Prediction Potential agencies identified CNES NASA/GRC NASA/JPL UKSA K. Tuttle has agreed to be the test report lead for this prototype Need to look into (re-)use/leveraging of TDM prototyping Service Package/Service Request Potential agencies identified are DLR, ESA Note – this may benefit from and/or be coordinated with planning request for communication geometry output K. Tuttle – test report lead?

Service Catalog Agreed to research the material circa 2012 (at time of de-scoping of CSA WG charter) In particular provide comparative analysis on this material vs existing service catalogs Action to H. Kelliher for fall meetings Noted that there is a relationship to the functional resource model that needs to be worked out

Service Accounting Reviewed response to AI from J. Reinert, comparing DLR, ESA, and NASA/SN (SGSS) received so far Discussed some options for reporting E.g., per service, such as runs of successfully decoded frames vs gaps for telemetry Level of services, such as service packages executed per unit of time Action to E. Barkley – provide 1 st cut of metrics for telemetry, command, and ranging services for Fall 2015 meetings

Management Services Agreed to look re-visit earlier management services material and do a preliminary trade-type study re SOAP v REST To support discussions related to operations that have begun to surface in looking at abstract request engineering Action to A. Crowson and U. Müller-Wilm for Fall meetings

Work Plan  Fall Meetings

Thank You Thank you to Participants for traveling to and contributing to productive meetings NASA/Caltech-JPL for excellent hosting and facilities