1. OMG Mailing List
  2. Command and Mission Control Message Specification (C2MS) 1.0 Finalization Task Force

Open Issues

  • Issues not resolved
  • Name: c2ms-ftf
  • Issues Count: 44

Issues Summary

Key Issue Reported Fixed Disposition Status
C2MS-4 Subject naming missing the concept of something not being directly tied to a satellite C2MS 1.0a1 open
C2MS-3 Lack of a registry concept C2MS 1.0a1 open
C2MS-2 Should GMSEC API enforce/recommend XML-formatted string constructor usage? C2MS 1.0a1 open
C2MS-1 Expecting that GMSEC will change to use C2MS as its Subject Standard C2MS 1.0a1 open
C2MS-22 Make sure CCSDS info is consistent and current C2MS 1.0b1 open
C2MS-15 Procedure Execution Status/Progress/Detail Messages C2MS 1.0b1 open
C2MS-14 Data Dictionary Messages C2MS 1.0b1 open
C2MS-13 Parameter Mnemonic Messages Misses "setter" C2MS 1.0b1 open
C2MS-11 Archive Mnemonic Value Request comments C2MS 1.0a1 open
C2MS-5 Acknowledge Final Status is not deterministic C2MS 1.0a1 open
C2MS-59 For consistency, all message types should have a name that ends with "message" C2MS 1.0b1 open
C2MS-44 Requesting data via pub/sub requires knowing publisher's service name C2MS 1.0b1 open
C2MS-43 Modifying a subscription is undefined C2MS 1.0b1 open
C2MS-42 Pub/Sub subscription status unknown C2MS 1.0b1 open
C2MS-39 XML PSM recommended C2MS 1.0b1 open
C2MS-23 Flatten the message hierarchy re: C2CX, TLM, and NDM messages C2MS 1.0b1 open
C2MS-18 page numbers in early sections are messed up (i, ii, i, iii, etc.) C2MS 1.0b1 open
C2MS-9 C2CX Heartbeat comments C2MS 1.0a1 open
C2MS-8 Directive Request: strings, UNIQUE-ID and correlation IDs C2MS 1.0a1 open
C2MS-7 Change comments regarding signed types C2MS 1.0a1 open
C2MS-6 Have required attributes in the messages C2MS 1.0a1 open
C2MS-62 Specify multiplicity for required and optional fields C2MS 1.0a1 open
C2MS-61 Add documentation within the model C2MS 1.0a1 open
C2MS-60 "Mnemonic" should be called "Parameter" C2MS 1.0b1 open
C2MS-40 Non-satellite-related messages are not representable C2MS 1.0b1 open
C2MS-78 Add another row in the table, for operator entered log messages C2MS 1.0b1 open
C2MS-17 use of color is discouraged C2MS 1.0b1 open
C2MS-25 Change the type info for a field in the C2CX Device message C2MS 1.0b1 open
C2MS-24 Add Command Echo message C2MS 1.0b1 open
C2MS-36 Fix C2CX Device message, field NUM-OF_DEVICES C2MS 1.0b1 open
C2MS-41 Acknowledge Final Status inconsistency C2MS 1.0b1 open
C2MS-84 Merge figures 8-1 and 8-2 C2MS 1.0b1 open
C2MS-83 Add (back) Simple Service request and response messages C2MS 1.0b1 open
C2MS-82 Change HEADER-VERSION and CONTENT-VERSION default values to 2019 in all Message Diagrams and all Message Contents tables C2MS 1.0b1 open
C2MS-81 Add DESTINATION-COMPONENT field to the header and to the Miscellaneous Elements of REQ, RESP, and MSG messages that are associated with a REQ C2MS 1.0b1 open
C2MS-80 Add field MSG-VERSION to the header C2MS 1.0b1 open
C2MS-79 Add request-id to be one of the Miscellaneous Elements in subjects of MSG type messages that may be in response to a request C2MS 1.0b1 open
C2MS-21 In Heartbeat message: fix typo in the name of the field CONNECTION-ENDPOINT C2MS 1.0b1 open
C2MS-20 space/18-02-05 (C2MS zip file for XML schemas) contains corrupt file C2MS 1.0b1 open
C2MS-19 space/18-02-03 XMI file doesn't 'validate' C2MS 1.0b1 open
C2MS-16 space/18-02-05 (C2MS zip file for XML schemas) - zip file unreadable C2MS 1.0b1 open
C2MS-12 Product Messages comments C2MS 1.0a1 open
C2MS-10 Mnemonic Value Request comments C2MS 1.0a1 open
C2MS-57 Figure 7-1, C2MS Message Exchange Patterns Diagram, misspells RESPONSE C2MS 1.0b1 open

Issues Descriptions

Subject naming missing the concept of something not being directly tied to a satellite

  • Key: C2MS-4
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NASA ( Jay Bugenhagen)
  • Summary:

    Subject naming still missing the concept of something not being directly tied to a satellite. CC2/EGS has the MISSION==ENTERPRISE, CONSTELLATION==SERVICE concept.

    • Should more generic attribute names for these positions be considered?
  • Reported: C2MS 1.0a1 — Mon, 10 Sep 2018 19:12 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 14:05 GMT

Lack of a registry concept

  • Key: C2MS-3
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NASA ( Jay Bugenhagen)
  • Summary:

    Discoverability of data is still a major concern due to the lack of a registry.

    • Unclear how components are supposed to find out about available resources
    • Unclear how components are supposed to find out about related subjects
    • What is the associated heartbeat subject of a client, particularly a temporary one?
    • ME1 depends on knowing the name of the other end beforehand. Where is this supposed to come from and why should a component have to care about that?
    • Recommend a registry be considered and answers to question above.
  • Reported: C2MS 1.0a1 — Mon, 10 Sep 2018 19:10 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 14:05 GMT

Should GMSEC API enforce/recommend XML-formatted string constructor usage?

  • Key: C2MS-2
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NASA ( Jay Bugenhagen)
  • Summary:

    Being that C2MS is standardizing the XML representation of a message entering the API, should the constructor that takes an XML-formatted Message be deemed the preferred way of using GMSEC going forward?

  • Reported: C2MS 1.0a1 — Mon, 10 Sep 2018 19:09 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 14:05 GMT

Expecting that GMSEC will change to use C2MS as its Subject Standard

  • Key: C2MS-1
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NASA ( Jay Bugenhagen)
  • Summary:

    GMSEC uses a different value for Subject Standard Specification (in table 6.4). Expecting that GMSEC will change to use C2MS as its value to be a compliant PSM.

  • Reported: C2MS 1.0a1 — Mon, 10 Sep 2018 19:04 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 14:05 GMT

Make sure CCSDS info is consistent and current

  • Key: C2MS-22
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NASA ( Jay Bugenhagen)
  • Summary:

    Review all references and content related to CCSDS for currency, correctness, etc. For example, some fields in messages map to fields in CCSDS messages - these should be double-checked.

  • Reported: C2MS 1.0b1 — Fri, 14 Sep 2018 17:56 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 14:05 GMT

Procedure Execution Status/Progress/Detail Messages

  • Key: C2MS-15
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Boeing ( David Overeem)
  • Summary:

    I do not expect this can be addressed by the FTF. Suggest vote to defer to a future revision.

    For a complete implementation of C2MS on the systems I use, we need some kind of Procedure Script Execution set of messages. These would include being able to launch procedures, monitor them, show progress, etc. This could be a topic of some significant discussion and is entirely new scope. The closest analogue I have so far found is the Activity Tracking stuff in the CCSDS Mission Operations Common Services.

    if I do not write it down, I will forget.

  • Reported: C2MS 1.0b1 — Thu, 13 Sep 2018 00:28 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 14:05 GMT

Data Dictionary Messages

  • Key: C2MS-14
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Boeing ( David Overeem)
  • Summary:

    I do not expect this can be addressed by the FTF. Suggest vote to defer to a future revision.

    It seems that there is a consensus that we need database data dictionary informational messages. It seems to be in work. Capturing the item here.

    if I do not write it down, I will forget.

  • Reported: C2MS 1.0b1 — Thu, 13 Sep 2018 00:23 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 14:05 GMT

Parameter Mnemonic Messages Misses "setter"

  • Key: C2MS-13
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Boeing ( David Overeem)
  • Summary:

    I do not expect this can be addressed by the FTF. Suggest vote to defer to a future revision.

    The messages for mnemonic access do not appear to include a request/response for "setting" the value of a parameter (mnemonic) from an application participating using C2MS. This capability is used for ground and other types of non-telemetered parameters (mnemonics).

    if I do not write it down, I will forget.

  • Reported: C2MS 1.0b1 — Thu, 13 Sep 2018 00:21 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 14:05 GMT

Archive Mnemonic Value Request comments

  • Key: C2MS-11
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NASA ( Jay Bugenhagen)
  • Summary:

    (Archive Mnemonic Value Request) Section 7.9.1

    • Need official registry for FORMAT values
  • Reported: C2MS 1.0a1 — Mon, 10 Sep 2018 19:25 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 14:05 GMT

Acknowledge Final Status is not deterministic

  • Key: C2MS-5
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NASA ( Jay Bugenhagen)
  • Summary:

    Table 6-9: Acknowledge Final Status is not deterministic (rather than Yes). It is a final status in MEP2, but not a final status in MEP 4, 5

  • Reported: C2MS 1.0a1 — Mon, 10 Sep 2018 19:15 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 14:05 GMT

For consistency, all message types should have a name that ends with "message"

  • Key: C2MS-59
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Kratos RT Logic, Inc. ( Gerry Simon)
  • Summary:

    For most of the message types in C2MS, this convention is followed. The exceptions are:

    -Archive Message Retrieval Request
    -Archive Message Retrieval Response
    -Telemetry Message for CCSDS Packet
    -Telemetry Message for CCSDS Frame
    -Telemetry Message for TDM Frame

    Recommendation is to deffer this issue, but wanted to capture it because the community will ask why the inconsistent naming.

  • Reported: C2MS 1.0b1 — Tue, 11 Dec 2018 21:39 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 14:05 GMT

Requesting data via pub/sub requires knowing publisher's service name

  • Key: C2MS-44
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Kratos RT Logic, Inc. ( Justin Boss)
  • Summary:

    Requesting data, such as telemetry, via pub/sub requires knowing the publisher's server name. There should be a way to request data without this being already known. Solutions could include not requiring the publisher name in the subject or a registry capability.

  • Reported: C2MS 1.0b1 — Tue, 27 Nov 2018 22:48 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 14:05 GMT

Modifying a subscription is undefined

  • Key: C2MS-43
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Kratos RT Logic, Inc. ( Justin Boss)
  • Summary:

    The current specification does not detail how to handle a modification of a subscription. How this is performed should be included in the specification, such as repeating a new subscription with those items that are to remain in the subscription versus just the changes.

  • Reported: C2MS 1.0b1 — Tue, 27 Nov 2018 22:45 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 14:05 GMT

Pub/Sub subscription status unknown

  • Key: C2MS-42
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Kratos RT Logic, Inc. ( Justin Boss)
  • Summary:

    C2MS should offer a mechanism for clients and/or servers to be able to check validity of a subscription.

  • Reported: C2MS 1.0b1 — Tue, 27 Nov 2018 22:43 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 14:05 GMT

XML PSM recommended

  • Key: C2MS-39
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Kratos RT Logic, Inc. ( Justin Boss)
  • Summary:

    Due to lack of the ability to have multiple independent implementations of GMSEC due to its message-building API functions in source code, it would be appreciated if there were an XML PSM available. This would allow for an independent implementation apart from the single known implementation at this time. At this time, there is no known PSM that enables implementation of C2MS at this time that does not depend on FOSS or government-licensed IP.

    This is based on inputs from C2MS-2.

  • Reported: C2MS 1.0b1 — Mon, 26 Nov 2018 21:07 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 14:05 GMT

Flatten the message hierarchy re: C2CX, TLM, and NDM messages

  • Key: C2MS-23
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NASA ( Jay Bugenhagen)
  • Summary:

    There is an intermediate sub-layer that is not needed in the C2CX, TLM, and NDM messages that makes common processing more difficult. I suggest removing the sub-layer so that all messages are uniquely identifiable by their type and sub-type.

    For example, heartbeat messages are currently categorized like this:
    type - MSG
    subtype - C2CX
    c2cx-subtype - HB

    I suggest there is no need for the C2CX layer. it should be like this:
    type - MSG
    subtype - HB

    Similarly for other C2CX messages, TLM messages, and NDM messages.

  • Reported: C2MS 1.0b1 — Tue, 18 Sep 2018 19:14 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 14:05 GMT
  • Attachments:

page numbers in early sections are messed up (i, ii, i, iii, etc.)

  • Key: C2MS-18
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NASA ( Jay Bugenhagen)
  • Summary:

    self-explanatory

  • Reported: C2MS 1.0b1 — Fri, 14 Sep 2018 17:50 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 14:05 GMT

C2CX Heartbeat comments

  • Key: C2MS-9
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NASA ( Jay Bugenhagen)
  • Summary:

    (C2CX Heartbeat) Section 7.5.4

    • Suggest not having CPU / Memory utilization in the messages. That would be better implemented through normal system monitoring mechanisms (e.g., SNMP). Code to retrieve such information is typically platform-specific and is not related to the business logic of the component.
    • If such information is required, suggest having a system monitoring component instead.
    • Unclear exactly how this would work in a clustered environment. Different hosts implementing the same service would provide conflicting answers.
    • Unclear why the commentary on why memory leaks are bad is in the spec
  • Reported: C2MS 1.0a1 — Mon, 10 Sep 2018 19:21 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 14:05 GMT

Directive Request: strings, UNIQUE-ID and correlation IDs


Change comments regarding signed types

  • Key: C2MS-7
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NASA ( Jay Bugenhagen)
  • Summary:

    Table 8-1: Suggest changing comments regarding signed types. As written, they read like signed magnitude, even though the range implies twos complement.

  • Reported: C2MS 1.0a1 — Mon, 10 Sep 2018 19:17 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 14:05 GMT
  • Attachments:

Have required attributes in the messages

  • Key: C2MS-6
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NASA ( Jay Bugenhagen)
  • Summary:

    Suggest favoring having required attributes in the messages rather than encouraging applications to hardcode looking for the nth element of the subject, as different existing GMSEC-based systems already have different numbers of tokens in the subject.

    • While these items may exist in the body of a message, it has been found that some existing GMSEC consuming apps are extracting from subjects
  • Reported: C2MS 1.0a1 — Mon, 10 Sep 2018 19:16 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 14:05 GMT
  • Attachments:

Specify multiplicity for required and optional fields

  • Key: C2MS-62
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Kratos RT Logic, Inc. ( Gerry Simon)
  • Summary:

    Set the association multiplicity for required fields to '1' and optional fields to '0..1'

  • Reported: C2MS 1.0a1 — Wed, 12 Dec 2018 21:37 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 14:05 GMT

Add documentation within the model

  • Key: C2MS-61
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Kratos RT Logic, Inc. ( Gerry Simon)
  • Summary:

    In the current version of the model, there is no descriptive documentation within the model itself. This could be easily added from the non-normative specification and would aid engineering teams who use the model.

  • Reported: C2MS 1.0a1 — Wed, 12 Dec 2018 21:31 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 14:05 GMT

"Mnemonic" should be called "Parameter"

  • Key: C2MS-60
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Kratos RT Logic, Inc. ( Gerry Simon)
  • Summary:

    This to be consistent with the XTCE Specification. Moreover Mnemonic isn't accurate as the very definition of mnemonic is a shorthand "code" for the actual parameter name.

    Recommend close/deferring this issue, but believe it's important to capture our rationale as the community will ask why the inconsistency between SDTF specifications.

  • Reported: C2MS 1.0b1 — Tue, 11 Dec 2018 21:48 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 14:05 GMT

Non-satellite-related messages are not representable

  • Key: C2MS-40
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Kratos RT Logic, Inc. ( Justin Boss)
  • Summary:

    The subject naming of messages expects the constructs of a mission, constellation, and satellite. It is undefined how subjects should be formed that are not associated with these. This has been dealt with in specific ISDs with MISSION=ENTERPRISE, CONSTELLATION-ID=SERVICE, SAT-ID-PHYSICAL=<service_name>.

    An example is how ground equipment should be addressed, as it might support being used by several spacecraft.

    This is based on inputs from C2MS-4.

  • Reported: C2MS 1.0b1 — Mon, 26 Nov 2018 21:13 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 14:05 GMT

Add another row in the table, for operator entered log messages

  • Key: C2MS-78
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NASA ( Jay Bugenhagen)
  • Summary:

    Add a row to table 8-13 for operator entered log messages; this issue at the request of the NASA JPSS mission and also potentially for use by the NASA GMSEC Note component.
    Table is alphabetical, so add a row between FDN and ORB rows, as follows:
    OPER Operator Information Operator entered log message

  • Reported: C2MS 1.0b1 — Tue, 7 May 2019 17:55 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 14:05 GMT

use of color is discouraged

  • Key: C2MS-17
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NASA ( Jay Bugenhagen)
  • Summary:

    For all message diagrams, color is problematic. Make black/white for printing, copying, etc.

  • Reported: C2MS 1.0b1 — Fri, 14 Sep 2018 17:50 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 14:05 GMT
  • Attachments:

Change the type info for a field in the C2CX Device message


Add Command Echo message

  • Key: C2MS-24
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NASA ( Jay Bugenhagen)
  • Summary:

    Rich Monteleone of RTLogic suggested adding a command echo message. Here is an email from him about it. I (Jay Bugenhagen) also have available Rich's sample schema and some other info re: the potential new message.
    ----------------------------------
    Per our discussions recently I’ve created a draft for a Command Echo GMSEC Message Schema (GMSEC.MSG.CMD.ECHO) for consideration by NASA/EGS.

    Notes/Rationale:
    Since Command Echo is executed out-of-band with Command Request/Response (GMSEC.REQ.CMD) I’ve elected to construct the schema for publish/subscribe messaging.
    I based the schema’s off of the 2016.00 spec delivered with the GMSEC 4.3 API
    I also attached the GMSEC.REQ.CMD schema, I’ve added an optional field that we found we needed for commanding (see CMD-ENCODING).

    Discussion topics: We need to determine whether or not we should add the comparison of metadata associated with a commands to command echo. Right now we are not comparing command metadata.
    Example metadata (SPACECRAFT-EXECUTION-TIME, LATEST-UPLINK-TIME, EARLIEST-UPLINK-TIME, RELEASE-TIME)

  • Reported: C2MS 1.0b1 — Fri, 21 Sep 2018 14:53 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 14:05 GMT
  • Attachments:

Fix C2CX Device message, field NUM-OF_DEVICES

  • Key: C2MS-36
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NASA ( Jay Bugenhagen)
  • Summary:

    The field NUM-OF_DEVICES should be NUM-OF-DEVICES - that is, the underscore should be a dash for consistency with all other messages' field names.

  • Reported: C2MS 1.0b1 — Mon, 22 Oct 2018 18:03 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 14:05 GMT
  • Attachments:

Acknowledge Final Status inconsistency

  • Key: C2MS-41
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Kratos RT Logic, Inc. ( Justin Boss)
  • Summary:

    Based on review of latest specification, the problem detailed in C2MS-5 is still present. This problem makes it not possible for a client application to properly be developed to support all MEPs. If a client application is developed to support MEP2, then it will ignore all future responses after the first ACK comes in when communicating with a server that supports MEP4 or MEP5. If a client application is developed to support MEP4 and MEP5, then it will never think that a request finished when communicating with a server that supports MEP2.

    As is currently specified, via table 6-9 on page 20, the Acknowledge is listed as a Final Status. Though it is only a final status in MEP2.

    Possible solutions:
    1. Remove MEP2. This would make Acknowledge in Table 6-9 have a Final Status of "No"
    2. Add an additional status code of Acknowledge Complete (perhaps #7). In this option, Acknowledge (#1) would have Final Status of "No", though new Acknowledge Complete (#7) would have Initial Status of "Yes", Intermediate Status of "No", and Final Status of "Yes".

  • Reported: C2MS 1.0b1 — Mon, 26 Nov 2018 21:44 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 14:05 GMT


Add (back) Simple Service request and response messages

  • Key: C2MS-83
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NASA ( Jay Bugenhagen)
  • Summary:

    These messages were a part of the heritage source spec (i.e., GMSEC project) for C2MS, but were not included in the final C2MS RFC submission. AF/EBIG would like these messages added back in.

  • Reported: C2MS 1.0b1 — Wed, 8 May 2019 15:22 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 14:05 GMT
  • Attachments:

Change HEADER-VERSION and CONTENT-VERSION default values to 2019 in all Message Diagrams and all Message Contents tables

  • Key: C2MS-82
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NASA ( Jay Bugenhagen)
  • Summary:

    This change is to match the (expected) publication year of C2MS.

  • Reported: C2MS 1.0b1 — Tue, 7 May 2019 18:57 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 14:05 GMT
  • Attachments:

Add DESTINATION-COMPONENT field to the header and to the Miscellaneous Elements of REQ, RESP, and MSG messages that are associated with a REQ

  • Key: C2MS-81
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NASA ( Jay Bugenhagen)
  • Summary:

    Add an optional message field of type HEADER STRING called DESTINATION-COMPONENT to all messages, via the message header. Reasoning: many C2MS messages already specify to add this value to one of the miscellaneous subject elements. This change is to make consistent the desire that all subject elements are also elements of the message body; note that COMPONENT (name of the sender) is already a field in the message header.

  • Reported: C2MS 1.0b1 — Tue, 7 May 2019 18:36 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 14:05 GMT
  • Attachments:

Add field MSG-VERSION to the header

  • Key: C2MS-80
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NASA ( Jay Bugenhagen)
  • Summary:

    Add MSG-VERSION to the header (type: string, status: optional, description: “Version information for the message”). Reasoning: AF/EBIG has already added these to their messages and would like to codify it as part of the standard. This field provides more granular versioning than the HEADER-VERSION and CONTENT-VERSION fields currently available.

  • Reported: C2MS 1.0b1 — Tue, 7 May 2019 18:27 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 14:05 GMT
  • Attachments:

Add request-id to be one of the Miscellaneous Elements in subjects of MSG type messages that may be in response to a request

  • Key: C2MS-79
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NASA ( Jay Bugenhagen)
  • Summary:

    Subject filtering on request-id may be useful for receivers (clients) of data. Use the new field request-id (see issue C2MS-8) to populate the new miscellaneous element in subjects.
    This change applies to MSG type of messages that are in response to a REQ type of message - currently MVAL, AMVAL, and PROD.

  • Reported: C2MS 1.0b1 — Tue, 7 May 2019 18:13 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 14:05 GMT
  • Attachments:


space/18-02-05 (C2MS zip file for XML schemas) contains corrupt file

  • Key: C2MS-20
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NASA ( Jay Bugenhagen)
  • Summary:

    GMSEC_Defaults.xsd is mangled

  • Reported: C2MS 1.0b1 — Fri, 14 Sep 2018 17:53 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 14:05 GMT
  • Attachments:

space/18-02-03 XMI file doesn't 'validate'

  • Key: C2MS-19
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NASA ( Jay Bugenhagen)
  • Summary:

    see line 3 extraneous namespace; line 5849 <NUL> character

  • Reported: C2MS 1.0b1 — Fri, 14 Sep 2018 17:51 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 14:05 GMT
  • Attachments:

space/18-02-05 (C2MS zip file for XML schemas) - zip file unreadable

  • Key: C2MS-16
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NASA ( Jay Bugenhagen)
  • Summary:

    space/18-02-05 is corrupt

  • Reported: C2MS 1.0b1 — Fri, 14 Sep 2018 17:49 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 14:05 GMT
  • Attachments:

Product Messages comments

  • Key: C2MS-12
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NASA ( Jay Bugenhagen)
  • Summary:

    (Product Messages) Section 7.11 (Though these comments are related to guidance for custom messages

    • Consider providing guidance regarding what the minimal set of attributes should be for a custom message type.
    • Indicate that custom messages can be considered to become sponsored message types in future versions of the specification.
    • Extending the lexicon should be encouraged by the implementation, not discouraged, as the strictest of the GMSEC 4.x MIST modes does.
  • Reported: C2MS 1.0a1 — Mon, 10 Sep 2018 19:26 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 14:05 GMT

Mnemonic Value Request comments

  • Key: C2MS-10
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NASA ( Jay Bugenhagen)
  • Summary:

    (Mnemonic Value Request) Section 7.8.1

    • In GMSEC, re-requesting on the same name is (per an e-mail thread with GSFC) defined as replacing the previous subscription instead of being additive/subtractive. Is that notion being kept in this spec? If so, this should be explicitly defined in the specification.
    • DURATION: When there is no DURATION specified, but a component decides to have a maximum duration anyway, data will arbitrarily stop. This is problematic for subscriptions by a non-UI system component, like a script that checks telemetry values or a roll-up / derived capability that subscribes to data to produce second-level data. Mechanisms to avoid such stoppages in data, such as periodically resubscribing are wasteful and potentially inconsistent between components.
  • Reported: C2MS 1.0a1 — Mon, 10 Sep 2018 19:23 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 14:05 GMT