RID Report for Agency review of CCSDS 521.0-R-2 “Mission Operations Message Abstraction Layer”
Date: 22/02/2010
RID Summary table:
RID ID / RID Short Title / DispositionINPE : 1 / English improvement / Accepted
INPE : 2 / English improvement / Accepted
INPE : 3 / English improvement / Accepted
INPE : 4 / English improvement / Accepted
INPE : 5 / English improvement / Accepted
INPE : 6 / English improvement / Accepted
INPE : 7 / English improvement / Rejected
INPE : 8 / English improvement / Accepted
INPE : 9 / English improvement / Accepted
INPE : 10 / English improvement / Rejected
INPE : 11 / English improvement / Accepted
INPE : 12 / English improvement / Accepted
INPE : 13 / English improvement / Accepted
INPE : 14 / English improvement / Accepted
INPE : 15 / English improvement / Rejected
INPE : 16 / English improvement / Rejected
INPE : 17 / English improvement / Rejected
INPE : 18 / English improvement / Accepted
ESA : 1 / Timeout required? / Rejected
DLR : 1 / Service specific green color / Accepted
DLR : 2 / Chapters "Request and Indications" not very clear / Accepted
DLR : 3 / A "the" to much / Accepted
ECSS : 1 / Definitions not iaw CCSDS Publication manual / Accepted
ECSS : 2 / Missing section "Nomenclature" / Accepted
ECSS : 3 / misuse of the nomenclature / Accepted
ECSS : 4 / Unclear nature of the text, and misuse of the nomenclature / Accepted
ECSS : 5 / Misuse of the nomenclature / Accepted
ECSS : 6 / Misuse of the mandatory nomenclature / Accepted
ECSS : 7 / Misuse of the mandatory nomenclature and specifications not individually identified / Accepted
ECSS : 8 / Misuse of the mandatory nomenclature / Accepted
ECSS : 9 / Specifications not individually identified / Accepted
ECSS : 10 / Mixture of normative and non-normative material / Accepted
Prototype : 736 / Suggestion for Readability / Accepted
Prototype : 746 / XML definition of EntityKeyList is wrong / Accepted
Prototype : 762 / Pub/Sub Registration QoS and priority / Accepted
Prototype : 763 / Publish error INCORRECT_STATE / Accepted
Prototype : 764 / Publish error SHUTDOWN / Accepted
Prototype : 770 / Publish Error not linked to Publish Register / Accepted
Prototype : 779 / Access Control should not check the outgoing Access Control error messages / Accepted
Prototype : 801 / PUBLISH_ERROR should not end Publisher interaction / Accepted
Prototype : 804 / SessionName and the MessageHeader / Accepted
Prototype : 808 / Private brokers need clarification / Accepted
Prototype : 813 / Import feature of the MAL XML schema is not useful / Accepted
Prototype : 820 / Removed COM elements from XSD / Accepted
Prototype : 825 / Null flag for Composite fields / Accepted
RIDs in Full:
AGENCY RID NUMBER: 1/18
SUBMITTING ORGANIZATION (Agency, Center): INPE
------
PAGE NUMBER: 1-1 PARAGRAPH NUMBER: 18
RID SHORT TITLE: English improvement
------
DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED CHANGE:
From:
“f) section 6 is the formal service specification XML schema.”
To:
“f) Section 6 is the formal service specification Extensible Markup Language (XML) schema.”
------
CATEGORY OF REQUESTED CHANGE:
------
DISPOSITION:
Accepted
------
AGENCY RID NUMBER: 2/18
SUBMITTING ORGANIZATION (Agency, Center): INPE
------
PAGE NUMBER: 1-2 PARAGRAPH NUMBER: 07
RID SHORT TITLE: English improvement
------
DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED CHANGE 2: page 1-2
From:
“NOTE – Informative references are listed in annex B.”
To:
“NOTE – Informative references are listed in ANNEX B.”
------
CATEGORY OF REQUESTED CHANGE:
------
DISPOSITION:
Accepted
------
AGENCY RID NUMBER: 3/18
SUBMITTING ORGANIZATION (Agency, Center): INPE
------
PAGE NUMBER: entire document PARAGRAPH NUMBER:
RID SHORT TITLE: English improvement
------
DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED CHANGE:
All figures should be cited on the text, for example: “in Figure 2-1”. This good practice helps the reader to understand the text easily. Moreover, the document has figures without title.
------
CATEGORY OF REQUESTED CHANGE:
------
DISPOSITION:
Accepted - Example message decompositions have not had figure titles added as it is deemed that the associated text is enough to explain the context.
------
AGENCY RID NUMBER: 4/18
SUBMITTING ORGANIZATION (Agency, Center): INPE
------
PAGE NUMBER: 2-2 PARAGRAPH NUMBER: 04
RID SHORT TITLE: English improvement
------
DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED CHANGE 4:
From:
“The Description and Usage sections describe the pattern and define the expected usage respectively.”
To:
“...”
I did not understand the text above, because this is only this text and its does not present the objective of the section 2.2.3 DESCRIPTION AND USAGE.
------
CATEGORY OF REQUESTED CHANGE:
------
DISPOSITION:
Accepted - A slight change to wording has been incorporated.
------
AGENCY RID NUMBER: 5/18
SUBMITTING ORGANIZATION (Agency, Center): INPE
------
PAGE NUMBER: entire document PARAGRAPH NUMBER:
RID SHORT TITLE: English improvement
------
DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED CHANGE:
All tables should have titles and should be cited in the text. This good practice helps the reader to understand the text easily.
------
CATEGORY OF REQUESTED CHANGE:
------
DISPOSITION:
Accepted - I have added many extra titles but have excluded tables that are used to represent structures as there are far too many of them in the document and it removes readability.
------
AGENCY RID NUMBER: 6/18
SUBMITTING ORGANIZATION (Agency, Center): INPE
------
PAGE NUMBER: 2-3PARAGRAPH NUMBER: 02
RID SHORT TITLE: English improvement
------
DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED CHANGE 6:
From:
“The message direction denotes the direction of the message relative to the provider of the pattern and is either IN or OUT. So all messages directed towards the provider are IN messages, and all messages directed away from the provider are OUT messages.
Message names must match those defined in the Primitives section.”
To:
“The message direction denotes the direction of the message relative to the provider of the pattern and is either IN or OUT. So all messages directed toward the provider are IN messages, and all messages directed away from the provider are OUT messages. Message names must match those defined in the Primitives section.”
PS: A good practice is to avoid paragraphs with one line. This practice should be applied to the entire document.
------
CATEGORY OF REQUESTED CHANGE:
------
DISPOSITION:
Accepted
------
AGENCY RID NUMBER: 7/18
SUBMITTING ORGANIZATION (Agency, Center): INPE
------
PAGE NUMBER: entire document PARAGRAPH NUMBER:
RID SHORT TITLE: English improvement
------
DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED CHANGE:
In my point of view, the state diagram figures are not proportional. The rectangle that represents the entities is very big for the text which is inside it.
------
CATEGORY OF REQUESTED CHANGE:
------
DISPOSITION:
Rejected - This is a limitation of the tool used to produce the diagrams unfortunately.
------
AGENCY RID NUMBER: 8/18
SUBMITTING ORGANIZATION (Agency, Center): INPE
------
PAGE NUMBER: 2-4 PARAGRAPH NUMBER: 03
RID SHORT TITLE: English improvement
------
DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED CHANGE:
From:
“The above example shows the state diagram for Consumer component from the example in figure 2-1, ...”
To:
“The example above shows the state diagram for Consumer component from the example in Figure 2-1, ...”
------
CATEGORY OF REQUESTED CHANGE:
------
DISPOSITION:
Accepted
------
AGENCY RID NUMBER: 9/18
SUBMITTING ORGANIZATION (Agency, Center): INPE
------
PAGE NUMBER: 2-5 PARAGRAPH NUMBER: 01
RID SHORT TITLE: English improvement
------
DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED CHANGE:
From:
“The allowed state transitions are defined in the State Charts section.”
To:
“The allowed state transitions are defined in Section 2.2.7.”
------
CATEGORY OF REQUESTED CHANGE:
------
DISPOSITION:
Accepted - The text has been updated to clarify the correct meaning.
------
AGENCY RID NUMBER: 10/18
SUBMITTING ORGANIZATION (Agency, Center): INPE
------
PAGE NUMBER: 2-6 PARAGRAPH NUMBER: 04
RID SHORT TITLE: English improvement
------
DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED CHANGE:
The fields of the Figure 2.4 and 2.5 are not discussed. Moreover, the abbreviations are not described.
------
CATEGORY OF REQUESTED CHANGE:
------
DISPOSITION:
Rejected - These are only examples and therefore no explanation is given (as stated in the final NOTE on that page).
------
AGENCY RID NUMBER: 11/18
SUBMITTING ORGANIZATION (Agency, Center): INPE
------
PAGE NUMBER: 2-7 PARAGRAPH NUMBER: 03
RID SHORT TITLE: English improvement
------
DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED CHANGE:
The fields “Support in replay” and “Capability Set” are not described in Table 2.1.
------
CATEGORY OF REQUESTED CHANGE:
------
DISPOSITION:
Accepted
------
AGENCY RID NUMBER: 12/18
SUBMITTING ORGANIZATION (Agency, Center): INPE
------
PAGE NUMBER: 2-7 PARAGRAPH NUMBER: 03
RID SHORT TITLE: English improvement
------
DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED CHANGE:
From:
“The values of table 2-1 are used to ...”
To:
“The values of Table 2-1 are used to ...”
------
CATEGORY OF REQUESTED CHANGE:
------
DISPOSITION:
Accepted
------
AGENCY RID NUMBER: 13/18
SUBMITTING ORGANIZATION (Agency, Center): INPE
------
PAGE NUMBER: 3-1 PARAGRAPH NUMBER: 01
RID SHORT TITLE: English improvement
------
DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED CHANGE:
Section 3.1 introduces topics of the Sections 3.5, 3.6 and 3.7. Why Sections 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 have no introduction?
------
CATEGORY OF REQUESTED CHANGE:
------
DISPOSITION:
Accepted
------
AGENCY RID NUMBER: 14/18
SUBMITTING ORGANIZATION (Agency, Center): INPE
------
PAGE NUMBER: 3-2 PARAGRAPH NUMBER: 01
RID SHORT TITLE: English improvement
------
DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED CHANGE:
From:
“It is detailed in, and the pattern shall end at this point.”
To:
“It is detailed in Section xxx, and the pattern shall end at this point.”
------
CATEGORY OF REQUESTED CHANGE:
------
DISPOSITION:
Accepted
------
AGENCY RID NUMBER: 15/18
SUBMITTING ORGANIZATION (Agency, Center): INPE
------
PAGE NUMBER: Section 3 PARAGRAPH NUMBER:
RID SHORT TITLE: English improvement
------
DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED CHANGE:
In Section 3, the tables are not described (e.g. Section 3.5.1.6) or are partially described (e.g. Section 3.5.1.5). In my point of view, all fields of a table should be described.
------
CATEGORY OF REQUESTED CHANGE:
------
DISPOSITION:
Rejected - This is the point of section 2.2 in the document, it describes each of these sections so that they do not need to be repeated in each subsequence section.
------
AGENCY RID NUMBER: 16/18
SUBMITTING ORGANIZATION (Agency, Center): INPE
------
PAGE NUMBER: Section 3 PARAGRAPH NUMBER:
RID SHORT TITLE: English improvement
------
DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED CHANGE:
In Section 3, a lot of subsections have no introduction. The subsections start directly with the citation of items. For example, this is the case for Subsections 3.5.1.8.1.1, 3.5.1.8.1.3, 3.5.1.8.1.4, etc.
------
CATEGORY OF REQUESTED CHANGE:
------
DISPOSITION:
Rejected - This is the point of section 2.2 in the document, it describes each of these sections so that they do not need to be repeated in each subsequence section.
------
AGENCY RID NUMBER: 17/18
SUBMITTING ORGANIZATION (Agency, Center): INPE
------
PAGE NUMBER: 3-6 PARAGRAPH NUMBER:01
RID SHORT TITLE: English improvement
------
DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED CHANGE:
From:
“The following example shows a simple example service with a single SEND pattern-based operation:”
To:
“The following use case shows a simple example service with a single SEND pattern-based operation:”
------
CATEGORY OF REQUESTED CHANGE:
------
DISPOSITION:
Rejected - I understand that this is not good English however previous reviewers have been unable to understand that this is an example section and therefore the overuse of the word 'example' shall remain.
------
AGENCY RID NUMBER: 18/18
SUBMITTING ORGANIZATION (Agency, Center): INPE
------
PAGE NUMBER: A-1 PARAGRAPH NUMBER: 01
RID SHORT TITLE: English improvement
------
DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED CHANGE:
The abbreviations “CCSDS“, “IP“, “PUBSUB“ “DEF“, “CCA“, “CCB“, “IEEE“, “UTF“ and “NaN“ should be inserted in the ANNEX A.
------
CATEGORY OF REQUESTED CHANGE:
------
DISPOSITION:
Accepted – Note, “DEF“, “CCA“, “CCB“ are not acronyms.
------
AGENCY RID NUMBER: ESA-1
SUBMITTING ORGANIZATION (Agency, Center): ESA
------
PAGE NUMBER: 3-24 PARAGRAPH NUMBER: 3.5.4
RID SHORT TITLE: Timeout required ?
------
DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED CHANGE: (Use From: "..." To "..." format)
In the invoke interaction pattern I believe that there are cases in which it would be necessary to specify a timeout on the RESPONSE. Consdier the case where there are two loosely coupled systems, one submits a request to the other via the INVOKE and gets back an ACK indicating that the request has been successfullt received. The submitting application then waits for a response, however there may be a time limit after which the application should assume that there is a problem (this may be a relativly long time of the order of hours or days), in this case it would be useful if a timeout could be raised.
This could obviously be handled by the application setting its owen timer after submitting the request, but I believe it would be cleaner if this facility was foreseen in the MAL.
I don't belive that this is handled by the timeout capabilities specified in the QoS as described in the reference model, although if it is please add a clarification describing how this is foreseen to be used.
------
CATEGORY OF REQUESTED CHANGE: Recommended
------
DISPOSITION:
Rejected - That is an implementation issue as it is between the local MAL and the consumer. It would be the subject of the relevant Language specific API (such as the Java API).
------
AGENCY RID NUMBER: 01
SUBMITTING ORGANIZATION (Agency, Center): DLR, GSOC
------
PAGE NUMBER: 2-6 PARAGRAPH NUMBER: 2.2.9
RID SHORT TITLE: Service specific green color
------
DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED CHANGE: (Use From: "..." To "..." format)
The color for "Serive Specific body is defined as green (fig 2-3).
But in figure 2-5 only fields "Time" and "Value" are green.
In the corresponding text under the figure it is stated that the TestNotify are service specific but their are not fully green.
Is there not here some discrepencies between figure and text ?
------
CATEGORY OF REQUESTED CHANGE:Editorial
------
DISPOSITION:
Accepted
------
AGENCY RID NUMBER: 02
SUBMITTING ORGANIZATION (Agency, Center): DLR, GSOC
------
PAGE NUMBER: PARAGRAPH NUMBER: 3.5.2.8, 3.5.3.8, 3.5.4.8, 3.5.5.8, 3.5.6.13
RID SHORT TITLE: Chapters "Request and Indications" not very clear
------
DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED CHANGE: (Use From: "..." To "..." format)
To really understand the sections "Requests and Indications" of the different patterns, the model with the four nodes: consumer / consumerMAL / providerMAL / provider should be described somewhere. It takes me a lot of time (and a piece of paper) to understand that Requests and Indications are exchanged only between consumer / consumerMAL or provider / providerMAL and that Messages are exchanged only between cosumerMAL and providerMAL. The section 2.2.6 Primitives" try to explain that with a few words but I think it should hold a figure explaining that more in details (and with the same terminology that is used later in the "Requests and Indications" sections)
------
CATEGORY OF REQUESTED CHANGE:Recommended
------
DISPOSITION:
Accepted
------
AGENCY RID NUMBER: 03
SUBMITTING ORGANIZATION (Agency, Center): DLR, GSOC
------
PAGE NUMBER: 3-29 PARAGRAPH NUMBER: 3.5.4.8.1.4, 3.5.4.8.2.4
RID SHORT TITLE: A "the" to much
------
DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED CHANGE: (Use From: "..." To "..." format)
chapter 3.5.4.8.1.4: point c) editorial error: From ", a the provider MAL shall" To ", a provider MAL shall". Same error in chapter 3.5.4.8.2.4
------
CATEGORY OF REQUESTED CHANGE:Editorial
------
DISPOSITION:
Accepted
------
AGENCY RID NUMBER: ECSS-001
SUBMITTING ORGANIZATION (Agency, Center): ECSS
------
PAGE NUMBER: 1-2 PARAGRAPH NUMBER: 1.4
RID SHORT TITLE: Definitions not iaw CCSDS Publication manual
------
DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED CHANGE: (Use From: "..." To "..." format)
FROM (see original)
TO:
1.4 DEFINITION OF TERMS
For the purpose of this document, the following definitions apply.
service provider
entity that implements a service
NOTE: It is equivalent to the target in a controller and target pattern. A service provider CAN also be a service consumer of lower-level services. However, IT IS ASSUMED THAT IS transparent to the consumers of the service; i.e., this is an implementation detail.
service consumer
entity that uses a service being supplied by a service provider
NOTE: A service consumer CAN also be a service provider to higher-level service consumers. However, IT IS ASSUMED THAT IT IS transparent to the lower-level service being invoked; i.e., this is an implementation detail.
service directory
entity that provides publish and lookup facilities to service providers and consumers
NOTE: Strictly speaking, a directory is not required if a wellknown service is to be used; however, in most circumstances a directory provides required flexibility in the location of services. Service location can be statically configured, dynamically discovered through a service directory, or a combination of the two; this is an implementation choice. The service directory is itself, by definition, a service.
------
CATEGORY OF REQUESTED CHANGE: Technical Fact
------
SUPPORTING ANALYSIS:
1. CCSDS A.20.0-Y-2 "Publications manual" # 3.4.1.7.1.b requires the introductory sentence "For the purpose of this document, the following definitions apply."
2. CCSDS A.20.0-Y-2 "Publications manual" # 3.4.1.7.1.a requires that the layout of each definition is as stated above, i.e. the term and the definition starting with small letter (this is not applicable to the NOTES), the definition not finishing with a "." (this is not applicable to the NOTES), and the definition shall be able to substitute the defined term in context, which imply that (a) any intoductory word such as "A service consumer is.. .." is not appropriate, and (b) any expalantory/complementary material shall go in NOTES.
3. I.a.w. CCSDS A.20.0-Y-2 #3.4.1.7.2 'should' and 'may' shall be used only for specifications. I.a.w. CCSDS A.20.0-Y-2 # 3.4.3.3.a, specifications shall start in Section 3, and not before. It is follows that section 1.4 "Definition of terms" cannot contain 'may' and 'should'.
------
DISPOSITION:
Accepted
------
AGENCY RID NUMBER: ECSS-002
SUBMITTING ORGANIZATION (Agency, Center): ECSS
------
PAGE NUMBER: 1-2 PARAGRAPH NUMBER: Missing
RID SHORT TITLE: Missing section "Nomenclature"
------
DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED CHANGE: (Use From: "..." To "..." format)
A section "1.5 Nomenclature" should be introduced. It shall contain:
1. The specific linguitic usages that apply in the document, if any.
2. Mandatorily, the following boilerplate text:
"The following conventions apply throughout this Recommended Standard:
a) the words 'shall' and 'must' imply a binding and verifiable specification;
b) the word 'should' implies an optional, but desirable, specification;
c) the word 'may' implies an optional specification;
d) the words 'is', 'are', and 'will' imply statements of fact."
------
CATEGORY OF REQUESTED CHANGE: Technical Fact
------
SUPPORTING ANALYSIS:
It is required by CCSDS A.20.0-Y-2 # 3.4.1.7.2.
------
DISPOSITION:
Accepted
------
AGENCY RID NUMBER: ECSS-003
SUBMITTING ORGANIZATION (Agency, Center): ECSS
------
PAGE NUMBER: 2-1 to 2-6 PARAGRAPH NUMBER: 2
RID SHORT TITLE: misuse of the nomenclature
------
DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED CHANGE: (Use From: "..." To "..." format)
FROM: See original
TO:
2. OVERVIEW
2.1 GENERAL
The MO service specifications detail a standard set of services. These services form.. .. Each operation of a service has a set behaviour: a message is sent from the consumer to the provider to instigate the operation, and zero or more messages CAN be exchanged thereafter depending on the specific pattern and operation. This set of messages, and the pattern in which they are exchanged, NEED TO be defined for each operation of each service.