1. CSS AREA REPORT 24 January 2007 Colorado Springs, USA CSS AREA: CSEG/CMC Report, Winter 2007 Meeting Erik Barkley (NASA/JPL) Area Director Yves Doat (ESA) Deputy Area Director 24 January 2007

2. CSS AREA REPORT 24 January 2007 Colorado Springs, USA eb/yd - 2 Service Management WG Cross Support Transfer Service WG LIST OF CURRENT WGs AND BOFs WITHIN AREA

3. CSS AREA REPORT 24 January 2007 Colorado Springs, USA eb/yd - 3 SM - SUMMARY TECHNICAL STATUS Goal: Develop Specifications for management of SLE Services: SLE SM/SR Service Specification, Working Group Status: Active _X__ Idle ____ Working Group Summary Situation: Working Group Summary progress: Red book : Red-1 deferred RIDs addressed; almost all conceptual analysis reviewed; consensus on priorities developed; detailed Red-2 production plan drafted (including management of off-line transfer services) Prototype: Consensus achieved on outline of prototype interoperations plan; Red-1 compliant shadow tracking demos targeted for late Summer (Sept -- JAXA/ESA/JPL) Problems and Issues : Ranging/Radiometeric Service: Inclusion of ranging/radiometric service is uncertain for Red-2 (analysis not sufficiently advanced to indicate confidence for inclusion by Red- 2; more info next slide). SMWG assumes that TBS transfer services to operate as current SLE transfer service. Prototype Interoperations : Successful shadow track demo will require internal agency organization support beyond WG authority status:OKCAUTIONPROBLEM comment: x

4. CSS AREA REPORT 24 January 2007 Colorado Springs, USA eb/yd - 4 SMWG Planning ActivityDate Conceptual Analysis for inclusion of management of Ranging and Radiometric services May 07 Draft Operations Concept Book (Green Book)May 07 Intermediate Meeting (Red-2 production check; Ranging/Radiometric inclusion decision; Green Book production check) May 07 XML Schema Update (Red-2 compliance)Oct 07 Red-2 (Submission to Secretariat’s Office)Sep 07 Prototype Interoperations (Red-1 compliant)Apr – Sep 07

5. CSS AREA REPORT 24 January 2007 Colorado Springs, USA eb/yd - 5 CSTS - SUMMARY TECHNICAL STATUS 1. CSTS WG Goal: Define a transfer service framework that provides the common aspects of the association, operations, and communications capabilities Working Group Status: Active _X__ Idle ____ Working Group Summary Situation: Working Group Summary progress: Generic Toolkit: Concept looks stable – most of meeting was concerned with details for toolkit SLE API books: Have been updated, to be submitted to secretariat ~2 weeks Existing SLE Blue-2: Analysis in progress on need for Version 3; completion of analysis expected in March 2007 Problems and Issues: Resources: Man-power situation may become problematic around July 2007 status:OKCAUTIONPROBLEM comment: X

6. CSS AREA REPORT 24 January 2007 Colorado Springs, USA eb/yd - 6 CSTS Planning ActivityDate Green Book 1 st draft of Toolkit Recommendation 1 st draft of Guidelines Recommendation Mapping of an existing service Oct 07 PrototypeSpring 08 Draft Radiometric serviceSpring 08 Draft RUFTSpring 08

7. CSS AREA REPORT 24 January 2007 Colorado Springs, USA eb/yd - 7 CROSS-AREA TECHNICAL ISSUES A.CCSDS System View: how does CSS Reference Model fit in a CCSDS reference model? SLE SM is looking at managing services that are not just SLE CSTS Toolkit allows ground domain services other than SLE to be addressed Compliance with JAXA Cross Support Architecture definition? Does CSS Reference Model WG (or something similar) need to be (re-)constituted? How does MOIMS SM+C WG fit with CSS SMWG? How do MOIMS Area and CCS Area fit? B.SM - RF Modulation : Management of spacelink parameters raises issue of general CCSDS (inter-)standards dependency management C.CSS - Delta-DOR: transfer service & service management  Inputs & coordination required. Need CSS charter update.

8. CSS AREA REPORT Annex 1.SLE SM Agency Priorities (SMWG Poll)

9. CSS AREA REPORT 24 January 2007 Colorado Springs, USA eb/yd - 9 SLE SM Agency Priorities (SMWG Poll) 1  No need now, no need envisioned for the future 2  May prove to be desirable, may be useful to study for future action 3  Interesting, should be addressed eventually, but can live without it for Blue Book 4  Desirable, would prefer that this be addressed in Red-2, not absolutely required for Red-2, but required for Blue Book 5  Required, agency needs this for Red-2 (and Blue Book)