1. OMG Mailing List
  2. Command and Mission Control Message Specification (C2MS) 1.1 Revision Task Force

Open Issues

  • Issues not resolved
  • Name: c2ms-rtf
  • Issues Count: 15

Issues Descriptions

Log message scope too broad, need Alert/Status style message introduced

  • Key: C2MS11-15
  • Status: open  
  • Source: The MITRE Corporation ( Ryan Conrad)
  • Summary:

    The LOG message is nice to cover a certain scope of messages needing to be utilize by developers using the specification, however the ProductMessage again and again finds itself utilized instead of the LOG message because of the structure the LOG message has versus the ProductMessage for making things like status or event messages.

    Because of this, I had looked at the ALMAS specification from Navy and the CAP (Common Alerting Protocol) from OMG to come up with an Alert Notification and Alert Ack message that would be greatly helpful in making a solid Header for alert and status messages that could be different in scope than typical LOG messages.

    I have these messages defined in GMSEC/COMPATC2, and would need to attach it for you to see the details. Thank you

  • Reported: C2MS 1.0b2 — Mon, 30 Sep 2019 18:57 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 3 Jan 2020 20:50 GMT

Add documentation within the model

  • Key: C2MS11-13
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Braxton Technologies, LLC ( 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: Fri, 3 Jan 2020 20:50 GMT

"Mnemonic" should be called "Parameter"

  • Key: C2MS11-12
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Braxton Technologies, LLC ( 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: Fri, 3 Jan 2020 20:50 GMT

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

  • Key: C2MS11-11
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Braxton Technologies, LLC ( 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: Fri, 3 Jan 2020 20:50 GMT

Specify multiplicity for required and optional fields

  • Key: C2MS11-14
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Braxton Technologies, LLC ( 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: Fri, 3 Jan 2020 20:50 GMT

Acknowledge Final Status inconsistency

  • Key: C2MS11-8
  • 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: Fri, 3 Jan 2020 20:50 GMT

XML PSM recommended

  • Key: C2MS11-7
  • 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: Fri, 3 Jan 2020 20:50 GMT

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

  • Key: C2MS11-10
  • 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: Fri, 3 Jan 2020 20:50 GMT

Pub/Sub subscription status unknown

  • Key: C2MS11-9
  • 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: Fri, 3 Jan 2020 20:50 GMT

Procedure Execution Status/Progress/Detail Messages

  • Key: C2MS11-6
  • 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: Fri, 3 Jan 2020 20:50 GMT

Data Dictionary Messages

  • Key: C2MS11-5
  • 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: Fri, 3 Jan 2020 20:50 GMT

Parameter Mnemonic Messages Misses "setter"

  • Key: C2MS11-4
  • 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: Fri, 3 Jan 2020 20:50 GMT

Lack of a registry concept

  • Key: C2MS11-1
  • 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: Fri, 3 Jan 2020 20:50 GMT

Archive Mnemonic Value Request comments

  • Key: C2MS11-3
  • 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: Fri, 3 Jan 2020 20:50 GMT

C2CX Heartbeat comments

  • Key: C2MS11-2
  • 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: Fri, 3 Jan 2020 20:50 GMT