General

Remark





Due to lack of a data dictionary and operational concept, the intent of the diagrams is not

always clear. For example, the same, e.g., “Collaboration”, or very similar terms, e.g., “Flight

Data Distribution”/ “Flight Data Publication” are used to represent different data exchanges and

functions but no definition or elaboration is yet provided. Without a full and consistent

understanding of the material, it is difficult to identify where there may be missing elements.

The approach to the OV-3, i.e., focusing on the exchange of information between NextGen

functions instead of information needed between organizations, potentially misses the

opportunity to identify operational gaps in organizational communication that may drive the

need for new/updated systems, services and/or functions. Operational scenarios are needed

to put the information exchange in context, and evolve/communicate the Ops Concepts for

future ANSP roles (e.g., the “Trajectory Manager”) and future capabilities (e.g., controller

managing aircraft operating in “Big Airspace”). Distinguishing what the humans need to do vs.

what the automation needs to do in support of the human interactions is important.

Consider clarifying the relationship between the FAA EA views/contents and the JPDO EA

artifacts. JPDO operations cover “curb to curb”. Per the NextGen EA Conference in June, the

FAA operations are the “gate to gate” subset. Explain whether the FAA EA artifacts are

intended to be an evolution, next layer down from the associated subset of JPDO artifacts, or

other. For example, should one attempt to draw a relationship between elements of the JPDO

OV-5 and the FAA OV-3?



Indicate whether a term is defined in the JPDO documentation, e.g., Appendix B, Glossary of

the NextGen Concept of operations, is applicable to the NAS EA artifacts “as is.”

Consider including an explanation of the purpose of the “National” vs. “Local” service distinction

on the SV-1 and SV-4. Indicate whether these distinctions are intended to represent same

function at potentially different physical locations. In the SV-4 supplemental diagrams, the

national and local instances seem to be decomposed in the same way. If the function is the

same, why are they represented differently? Similar questions exist for “Military” qualifiers,

given the function decomposition is represented as the same. (Is it “known” that the military

function is the same?)

Look into NASDAQ as this is a system of similar transaction volumes and near-realtime

requirements that I would anticipate for this system

• Sub-second type response requirements

• Transaction volume and speed

• Guaranteed delivery

• Uptime

http://www.nasdaq.com/services/intlmag/issue_44/44_market_matters.pdf



As with any view-based methodology - each view only contains a partial perspective. Analysis

of any individual view without the context provided by the other views is subject to interpretation

errors and leads to more questions then answers. To effectively support future activities,

suggest a full library of views and related capability-based documents be provided and that all

involved NCOIC members become knowledgeable.



The extremely limited review period allowed for this activity makes rigorous analysis

impractical. Suggest a minimum of 30 days be provided in the future. That would provide time

to marshal resources, conduct the analysis, and vet the results - with a little more rigor.

Looking across the views - several issues seem to be minimally addressed. Enterprise

Security - in general. From an Information Systems Security Engineering perspective there is a

lot of security data/information - for identity management, physical security, communications

security (network/comms architecture), storage security (storage architecture), host/computing

security (processing architecture), application architecture, and so on and so forth. Given that

security/privacy are a national priority - suggest that a security framework & architecture be

given much more visibility. Security - in all it's forms - becomes even more important

constraint/concern if the enterprise genuinely desires to move to open solutions and concepts

such as Cloud.



Looking across the views - several issues seem to be minimally addressed. Enterprise

Performance. The lack of well-defined and understood enterprise level performance

management model/framework is often a struggle. The views provided/reviewed contained little

information regarding performance data. Many organizations have embraced a output-outcome-

impact approach coupled to a well defined performance logic model - tied directly to operational

performance as perceived by 'customers'. Given the 'poor' performance (apparent lack of

concern by customers (i.e. passengers)) over the last few years - I'd expect to see some/more

emphasis on customer satisfaction as a theme across all documents.

Looking across the views - several issues seem to be minimally addressed. Continuity of

Operations (COOP). Didn't seem to be addressed adequately. COOP has been a driver for

many of our customers - especially those involved with enterprise-level and/or large-scale

transformation programs. If not addresses elsewhere - suggest adding or more clearly

identifying those architectural elements supporting COOP.



Looking across the views - several issues seem to be minimally addressed. Service

Orientation. There is a general lack of different ion in many programs between the adoption of

service-based business models (i.e. a Service-oriented Enterprise - within the Business

Architecture/Layer) and the use of service-oriented software development (i.e. Service-oriented

Architecture - within the Application Architecture/Layer). Suggest some care should be taken to

separate the two concepts and to educate all stakeholders. If not already familiar - may also

want to explore/examine/consider adoption of the OASIS and Open SOA framework/standards.

The FAA approach requires additional detail to layered into the EA forms as that info/detail

becomes available. Are sufficient resources planned to do this over the next several years and

into the future? A deconfliction process may be required at 6 months intervals due to the

amount of detail, at least for the next several years. Later, an annual update and deconfliction

process may be used.



Are Human Factors as strongly considered as it should be? It doesn’t appear to be relevant or

used on some roadmaps. Is this an area where the EA developers need to be asked to think

about Human Factors in a stronger fashion? (Consider how Quality Assurance had to be

forced into the programmatic of program review? Is this such a situation?).

In order to understand the intend of the present description of architecture and for our

information:

• What is the relationship between these NAS views and the NextGen System Enterprise

Architecture V2.0 from the JPDO, and additionally with the SWIM.

• Should these views abide by the NASEAF V2 (on the basis of DoDAF V1)?


The decomposition in supplemental diagrams, in general, is not well understood. Does

“decomposition” in this context imply “ownership of”, “use of” the sub-function or something

else? It is not clear given the same elements exist in multiple diagrams. For example, the

“Conflict Prediction” function appears in Fig 11 (CFPS), Fig 12 (F&SDM-L), Fig 13 (F&SDM-N),

Fig 16 (MSM), Fig 17 (MTM), Fig 20 (SM) and others. Is the concept that there is an “instance”

of the capability within each of the major functions or a “dependency on”? How is ownership

established? Suggest that some notation in the diagram or tables be added to clarify the

relationship. There is no description for each sub-function and the names are similar, in some

cases. It is noted that that page 7 of the SV-4 indicates that the decomposition is “unofficial”,

implying that this will be matured in subsequent publications.

Recommend consideration be given to the use of DoDAF 2.0 vice 1.5. DoDAF 2.0 is better

suited to the documentation of services and capabilities. This would be especially useful in

capturing the service descriptions provided in SV-4.

Recommend consideration be given to the use of SysML as a complement to DoDAF. SysML

offers several advantages, including: 1) Tool independence, 2) SysML is generally more

intuitive and easier to understand than DoDAF, 3) As a consequence of 1 and 2, SysML is

better suited to cross-organization collabortation for sytem of system development, and 4)

SysML is inherently more flexible than DoDAF, supporting traceability and even the generation

of stub code in SW systems.

Recommend more documentation be provided on the business processes that drive a

netcentric aviation ecosystem.

Recommend further clarification to define external interoperability, including security to the

NextGen 2025 ecosystem. Ensuring commercial and international interoperability will require a

great deal of negotiation that will drive the architecture, standards utilized and policy.

Recommend organizing of these documents to allow for clear traceability between the mission

requirements, the mission services and the technical services and standards. The documents

should also have clear levels of abstraction flowing from high level concepts thought technical

detail. All material should contain consistent terminology.

Member









LMCO









LMCO





LMCO









LMCO









Deloitte









BAE







BAE

BAE









BAE









BAE









BAE









BAE









BAE









Thales

LMCO





LinQuest









LinQuest



IBM





IBM









IBM

Comment

EA Page Object Remark



SV-1

Provide a reference to a mapping the expected business requirements to NAS capabilities that drive the

system interfaces. Business processes are listed, but true function of the business process requires

General further detail.

General General The potential value of net-centric operations is in multiple access to data in near real time by many more

Tone players. Overall efficiency can be improved, but new services, never imagined before, can be provided

as well. There does not seem to be any consideration of this potential for growth in the document. For

example, why must many functions depend on direct communications. Networked comm may advance

to the point that they would be more reliable and less latent than the direct comm now available and

apparently envisioned as the continuing backbone of the NAS.

Another example: suppose someone finds a way to extract valuable data from all the information on the

net, to provide a new service in say, maintenance. Where should they go for permission to access the

data, control of what they do with it, and who they offer the new service to, since they develop it from data

they don't own (and how do they know they can continue to have access to the data)?

There does not seem to be an office with responsibility for innovation. What if the net-centric data flow

included accelerations produced by turbulence, as measured by flight instrumentation, and could be

passed back in real time to a central processor/server to be processed into better forecasts? Who

decides if that's a good thing to pursue?



These charts are a good depiction of Enterprise Architecture, understandable across a broad spectrum of

General viewers.

General SV-1p There is no data and voice recording/replay function shown in any of the diagrams and functional

interfaces. Recording, replay and analysis is a key function and needs to be considered.

Architecture appears to be based on Governance rather than focused on Business. Support of business

trajectory based operations may not be fully indicated. Service Based Operations, such as ADS-B,

General should be indicated

Consider defining the relationship between these NAS views and the NextGen System Enterprise

General Architecture V2.0 from the JPDO, and with the SWIM.

General General Information Assurance and Security should be captured as one of the key functionalities and its interfaces

should also be included. Both voice and data encryptions/decryption, COMSAC, TRANSEC should be

considered. (SV-4 includes Security services as part of SOA Core Services, SV-1 should reflect the

functionality)

Describe the adaptation of the DoDAF to accommodate the FAA approach, and illustrate how the two

General differ, such as the var NASEAF V2 on the basis of DoDAF V1.

Include an acronym list to ensure that all readers share the same and accurate understanding of each of

them. In the "Input" and "Output" tables, the use of "Collaboration" as a type of data throughout the

General document is a bit unclear. Consider providing more insight onto the intended relation between functions.

Consider describing whether the identified groupings of data, functions, and services in any way driven by

“availability” characteristics (i.e., what is considered Critical, Essential, Routine?). Indicate whether things

General with like availability characteristics [for 2025] grouped together.

A fuller picture would be provided if a supplemantary diagram were generated to illustrate all elements of

NextGen, including Aircraft Flight Management, Aircraft Weather Sensors etc, which are also an integral

General part of the NextGen architecture.

The fact that "communications satellites are not explicitly shown" and "A/G communications facilities

represent both satellite and radio communications" makes evaluation of satcom within the architecture

difficult. Recommend that future versions explicitly document reliance on satcom in order to facilitate a

General meaningful evaluation.

Services to maintain the system, services to analyse the performance, services to support further

developments/upgrades, etc., including the respective stakeholders, should be foreseen within the entire

General architecture.

General "Net Centric Data" should be clarified with respect to "Voice" & "Data."

The blue/black/purple lines used to represent the different methods of communication are not always

General discernable. Recommend color choices that are more easily distinguished.

Consider annotating the diagrams in the SV-1 with the item # frm the OV-3matrix to ensure completeness

and consistency across the views. Perhaps place the OV-3 item # on the input/output line in the SV-1

Input/Output Supplementat Diagrams. Recommend elimination of potentially redundant and/or inconsistent

General tables information int eh I/O tables following the SV-1 figures.

i Consider clarifying whether all remote facilities that contribute to the NextGen EA are included in the

"Remote Facilities," or whether it contains only those facilities owned by the FAA.

i This document should indicate whether Military Radar included in Surveillance Facilities or whether this

an undocumented input from "Military (Partner)," or whether it is assumed that no military surveillance

data will be used within NextGen.

i

Describe what is covered by A/G communication facilities, illustrating whether it includes the

communication service provider only, or also includes the management of the air-ground datalink

applications. If it is the latter, the EMB can be depicted there. Recommend removal if it is the former.

i

Satellite Navigation and Satellite Weather provide the same type of service as any other Navigation and

Weather Facility respectively, so they should be included in the Remote Facilities area rather than as

'airborne elements'. Similarly, Satellite Communication would be an integral part of A/G Communication

Facilities. These can not be considered as consumer elements.

i As aircraft will receive data as an airborne node on the net-centric grid, there will likely be scope for

aircraft to communicate with each other, in addition to ADS-B, (which is shown) using an airborne

extension of the net-centric grid. This could be considered a Vendor service, including air to air, ground

to air, and ground to ground. Satellite and radio communications will likely be used in all elements,

including the remote facilities. Air to Air does not appear to be described in this SV1. Comment should

be included as to where the reader may look for the information, or whether it is considered beyond scope

of NextGen.

i There should be a direct connection from the Aircraft 'Weather Sensors' to the other aircraft to support

the airborne exchange of weather data between aircraft within the same vicinity.

i It appears from the diagram that all data outputs from a NextGen facility, regardless of the

importance/criticality of the data, will need to pass through the net-centric grid before being sent to the

aircraft on a dedicated link from the A/G Communication Facilities. If there are non-net-centric data

communications links from NextGen facilities, consider illustrating on this diagram. Consider adding a

black line to/from the Remote Facilities A/G Communication Facilities.

i figure 1 Consider renaming Support Service in Enterprise Network Services to Data Distribution Services for

clarity.

i figure 1 SOA core services are usually embedded functions used by other mission services. It is not necessary to

show an enterprise message bus connecting them is unnecessary.

figure 1 Describe the data that flows via the blue line vs. the black line in this portion of the diagram









Figure 1 Define the data flow in this diagram. The use of colors indicate that the data flow is not netcentric, Is that

the intention?

Figure 1 (no The functions/services in the “Interaction Services” Layer in the SV-4 (p3) do not appear to be

figure represented on the SV-1. Is this intentional? What artifacts will be used to convey the evolution of the AT

reference) Users interface needs through 2025, those managing “Classic Airspace” and those performing TBO, e.g.,

Big Airspace? For which capabilities will the user interaction (presentation of data, user interaction with

it) be consistent across the NAS? Where must it be configurable? Where does it need to be different to

support specific operations? Will OV-6cs which distinguish human user interaction from automated

system function to automated system function interaction be provided in the future to aid in identifying the

opportunities for convergence? There was reference to a set of these at the NextGen EA Conference

(Day 2 presentation by MITRE/CAASD)

i NextGen Services related to Airport Operations appear to be missing. They should appear in both gate-to-gate or

Facilities and curb-to-curb approaches.

i

Stakeholders Consider illustrating non-national stakeholders such as NATO and EDA through the military partner link.

i Information

Provision -

Commercial Consider illustrating commercial services such as charging, liability monitoring, copyright assurance, etc.

Services for Information Delivery.

i Airborne

Element Unmanned Aircraft might serve as communication node / relay in the future. Consider illustrating this here.

i Airborne Discuss the management of Spacecraft Traffic within the airspace should be discussed from an

Element operational concept point of view to make its impact on the architecture clear.

i Remote

Facilities Clarify the use of Military Surveillance Facilities here.

i Airborne Consider illustrating the communication required for air-air autonomous separation, in additiion to the

Element illustration of air-ground communication.

Remote

i Facilities Unmanned Aircraft Groundstations should be added in facilities.



Recommend removing the Enterprise Service Bus as that is an implementation detail.

Remote

Facilities Consider illustrating how legacy remote facilities and NextGen remote facilities will be integrated.

Consider a representation of "Surveillance Data Collection (Surface)" in the SV-1. This figure does not

represent this element, while in SV-2, figures 1 & 3 have this representation associated with a tower with

Figure 1 runways.

i and 1 Figure 1 and Commmunication satellites should be shown; there will be significant interaction air-ground, ground-

Figure 2 ground, and air-air over available satellite systems. This is shown in SV-2. The constraints of the aircraft

will require that multiple communication systems share limited antenna space on the airframe. Spectrum

crowding will also dictate that sharing of antennas and radio systems on a not-to-interfere basis will be the

norm.

1 Remote Inclusion of WAAS and LAAS in the satellite navigation support system architecture may not be sufficient

Facilities to deliver necessary satnav performance as there are well documented issues with these features.

Although they may be addressed in the 2025 timeframe, keeping the GPS augmentation implementation

as general as possible is recommended.

Consider expanding the description of Surveillance Facilities to refer to mutlilateration, in addition to ADS-

Overview 1 B, ADS-C and ground-based radar systems for 2025.

Include a defininition of "Aircraft Flight Management

Airborne There seems to be an Enterprise messaging Bus at the aircraft level shown in the overview diagram. The

Element analysis made in SESAR showed that indeed the aircraft would be part of SWIM but due to the

characteristics of the air-ground link it was felt more appropriate to adapt the air-ground exchanges at the

ground level instead of in the aircraft. This would mean showing the EMB at the A/G communication

facilities level.

Describe whether this SV-1 is intended to be functional oriented without respect to system, or whether

this NASEA implies that these functions are being consolidated. The DODAF SV-1 is typically used to

identify system nodes, systems, system items, services and service items and their interconnections.

1 Many of the functions defined in the NASEA currently are performed across multiple systems today.

Figure 2: Communication satellites, with links to both aircraft and the ground, should be included to diagram the

Airborne desired data flow which will be useful to all participants in the netcentric data chain. By leaving out the

Elements links, the diagram does not illustrate flight safety real-time transmission of black box data, airline

maintenace broadcast for embedded sensors, or airport operations issues dealing with content of aircraft

and passengers' needs which will ease flow of material at the arrival airports.

1

Consider adding Satellites to Remote Facilities. The system architecture should not mix aircrafts and

satellites. Aircraft are the essence of ATM purpose whereas satellites are just supporting the ATM.



Airborne

Element Consider including forcasting potential improvements of future systems: (1) the communication with a weather

satellite could be direct with aircraft; (2) Air/Air and Air/Ground radio communication will have a larger bandwidth; (3)

ATC satellite may be able to perform separation.

Aircrafts should not be considered not only as only consumer, but they should be able to provide and consume Net-

1 centric Data.

Airborne Consider specifically including Military Traffic, in addition to Commercial Aircraft and Unmanned Aircraft

1 Element as primary discriminators, or indicate that it will be treated as commercial traffic, or other.

Consider modifying the linkage between Unmanned Aircraft with NextGen only. Illustrate expanded use

Airborne cases to show linkage with SAR, Environmental Monitoring, Homeland Security Applications and other

1 Element services, as well as weather data collection.

Airborne ADS-B / ADS-C are treated here as benchmarks/baselines. Indicate whether the baseline counts for all

1 Element types of traffic / users (i.e. UAS, Military, GA)

The Figure 2 includes elements of different nature, the Flight Management belongs to a domain that is

totally different from e.g. the Transponder (the latter is a technological element); furthermore within ADS-

B usually is included a Transponder, then ADS-B or ADS-C are service elements?



Consider including security elements in the model of the airborne elements



Specify where "ATC Tools" are considered, as well as Ground-Ground Communications Facilities.



It is said: “All four types of remote facility include a System & Services Management function that

monitors the status of the remote functions and responds to maintenance commands from the national

System & Services Management function”. So would you plan to make maintenance commands as net-

centric data? It can be suspected the remote facilities could be a legacy one. The view should highlight

how legacy remote facilities and NetxGen remote facilities can be mixed. The four areas should be listed.

Communication will not be solely air to ground, but must include air to air, ground to air, and ground to

ground. Satellite and radio communications will be used in all elements, including the remote facilities. All

remote facilities were oriented to air to ground and that all other communications for ground to ground

were established and detailed elsewhere over the data/voice or net centric bus lines described later. Air

to Air is not described anywhere that I've seen in this SV1 is worthy of discussing (or to simply dismiss to

say beyond scope of nextgen discussions and look here instead fo air to air comms

Overview - infrastructure/architecture)

Remote Illustrate where Wake Vortex, Surface Management Data Collection Systems and other Air to Surface

1 Facilities data collection systems reside.

Consider illustrating how the Satellite Navigation systems will take Galileo, designed to be interoperable

General with GPS, into account by 2025

Editing Consider changing the word, "satellite" to "satellites" to reflect multiple navigation inputs, including Galileo and any

other national systems which may be available in 2025.

Indicate focus on interfaces to meet global interoperability requirements, such as International ATC,

1 to 4 Military, etc. as well as the complete Air-ground linkage.

Illustrate whether the net-centric grid the same, different, or in conjunction with SWIM, and whether it

2 includes DATACOM.

The assumption that "only the Aircraft Flight Management function will be connected via the net-centric

grid" does not take into account the new technologies such available by 2025, such as nanotechnology

for CNS-ATM. These technologies will provide new data that should be included in the datastream that

is being moved through all the nodes of the system. Improved flight safety (real time black box

transmission), improved maintenance (real time fault warnings), and improved flight customer satisfaction

through improved airport procedures (reduced wait times, reduced gate changes, etc) will all be made

possible by the use of nano-chips to move collect and move the in-air, on-flight data.



It is a bit confusing, I think it lacks just a NO:

“For those remote facilities that have NO access to a local net-centric grid node, these Data Acquisition Services are

located at the remote facility. Otherwise, these Data Acquisition Services are located at the nearest net-centric

node, and the connectivity between the remote facilities is through data access networks which connect systems to

the nearest net-centric node.”

2 2nd paragraph

Although the principle of local net-centric node is quite clear in the narrative, it may not be as obvious in graphic.

Consider including a diagram with distributed bubbles representing either net-centric nodes or remote facilities, and

2 aircrafts flying between.

Interactions “It is assumed that only the Aircraft Flight Management function will be connected via the net-centric grid, though

among some data is exchanged directly with the Flight Management function because of critical timing issues.” In my

Airborne opinion, there are too many constraints due to today’s technology. The target date is 2025, so it can be assumed

Elements and the radio network will have a higher bandwidth. So aircraft will be able to consume and provide more data in

Remote air/ground and air/air communications with fewer constraints about critical timing.

2 Facilities

3 Flight Consider large cargo carriers (e.g., FedEx, UPS) more explicitly, as their fleets might be net-centric

Operator already. Are cargo operators within the "private (business) consumers?"

description

Consider amending the language, "airport box represents operators who share (publish) information" to

3 include airport operators that consumer information.

3 State whether NWS raw weather data includes ASOS, ARSR, ASR andTDWR.

Illustrate whether DOD receive surveillance (sensor) data. Perhaps a new external box for the SOCC (air

3 defense) is necessary for this.

3 Indicate whether there be other contracted services besides flight planning in 2025.

Consider changing the name, "Ground-based NextGen Consumers," as the label doesn not seem

appropriate for the organizations (Flight Operators and Airlines) identified, according to the NextGen

3 Figure 5 definitions.

5 The definition and scope of "local products" requires clarification. Indicate whether local products include

raw weather data, forcasts, winds, and precipitation, as well as time critical alerts of hazardous weather,

local precipitation maps/forecasts etc..

5 Illustrate how duplicate surveillance data is fused: whether there a sensor network for distributed

multisensor tracking, whether it includes tracking and correlation, or only track distribution. Indicate

whether it includes the same aircraft seen by 2 different sensors from different facilities.

5 Indicate whether this includes route expansion and conversion, and whether this is a function that may be

embedded within a mission application or if it is a central service.

5 Recommend clarification of the difference between FMS and TM, as they appear to currently look very

similar.

5,6 Expand the description of the Service Dellivery portion of "Flight & State Data management" to relect the

functions described on page 13.

6 Very pleased to see the remark with regard to Local Weather Processing - some early discussions had

indicated that most if not all "local weather processing systems" would be eliminated; weather processing

is not the only processing that should and can be distrubuted to reduce latency problems and also

bandwidth issues - weather data/models are extremely large to move across the network.

6 Consider indicating whether SSM is also needed at the service delivery level.

6 Consider renaming SSA to System and Service Recording and Analysis for clarity

Are the SOA Core services located only in NextGen node? Or distributed in any stakeholder? Why aren’t

the system and services analysis and management at local level as well? It seems the NAS will use the

Service-Orientation Pattern. Are the services of enterprise wide operations centralised or distributed?

The fourth

Does the diagram mean the interfaces of services of enterprise wide operations are accessible in any

area below

the remote

NextGen Facilities? Does it mean only the Authorized clients services are accessible to the ground-

facilities: based stakeholders?

Local level means an area such as Florida, and national for the NAS? Right? It means there are only two

levels. Another approach could be an architecture of nested net-centric nodes: with a subordinate level

and a superordinate (play word) level in a nextgen facility. Hence there could be several levels in a

NextGen Facility (depending of course on its computing capability) a superordinate level being able to

manage several subordinate levels. The lower one is the local level and the higher one the national level.

The NAS could be managed as a pyramid with at the bottom the net-centric nodes for management of

local geographical area then at upper level the management of larger geographical area and at the top

the NAS management. The intermediate and final levels can be considered as logical levels and can be

assigned to any net-centric node unless they have the computing capability and they are in the area.

Hence the national level could be either managed in East cost or West cost.

One benefit is the capability to transfer the responsibilities of a failed net-centric node to another one.



Are there any assumptions made about the means by which different types of data will be distributed by

Content Management and Data Acquisition? Are certain types of data immediately passed on to specific

consumers, e.g. Trajectory Management 4DT to Aircraft Flight Management? Or held and only distributed

to 'subscribers' on a timed basis? When will the rules be defined in order that data distribution load and

Supplemental 7 performance evaluations can be performed?

Description in supplemental diagrams of services in figure 1 are missing:

• Spatial reference (Navigation Facilities in remote facilities)

• Flight Mgt (in Aircrafts)

General • Prototyping (Authorized client)

7 remark





When reading the service description, I understand you have this breakdown: Service / Function / Operation. So

what is accessible from an external consumer : the operations or the functions ?

A service is a consistent set of function gathered for an operational purpose. This purpose is not described in

service section or just a few. I am not convinced it is useful at this stage to introduce the business process (BP).

First because what it orchestrates is not specified, yet. And additionally it could be created so many Business

General Processes and for each one a specific purpose. And in this case each BP is seen as a function. The business

7 remark processes could be clarified and captured with dedicated view of orchestration.

Consider a complete functional analysis to determine whether there is a sufficiently high level of availability of

netcentric nodes for critical systems. The services Safety Mgt, Systems and Services Analysis and Mgt, the

General Enterprise Services Mgt and run-time Mgt seem to be dedicated to this task. Evaluate overlap between these

7 remark services.



AIM Figure 10 Consider illustrating how Oceanic and Cross-Border operations are covered



Consider illustrating that AIM accepts outages of the satellite constellation, to advise the Controllers of the

AIM 8 Figure 10 availability of SatNav systems along the airways (e.g. for the landing phase)

Aeronautical Information Management business processes are mentioned and inputs defined, but no

reference to further information on which coreservices support them. Suggest clarification in future

8 revisions.



AIM 10 Recommend Including a "Cyber Security Management" object within the AIM object.

"Business Continuity Management" as illustrated is contained in the Run-time Management Object. Recommend

expanding scope to include entire Aeronautical Information Management (AIM) to incorporate Content Management

10 and Data Acquisition in addition to Run-time Management.



Recommend changing "Contingency/Businss Continuity" to "Business Continuity Management" to be consistent with

11+ CFPS the diagram and other references in the document.

How can this service perform conflict prediction and resolution if all the trajectories are not available (they do not

CFPS 11 Figure 11 seem to be part of the inputs)

Describe the instances in which Flight Operator Stakeholder Operations would provide 4DT vs. providing the

12 CFPS proposed flight path, which would be used to generate the 4DT by Trajectory Management.

Consider diagramming the input from 'Weather Information Management (Local) shown on this diagram

F&SDM-L/N 13 Figure 12 in the OV-3 matrix.

13 Figure 12 Consider illustrating linkage to the military.



F&SDM-L / Consider renaming "Flight Data Publication" to Flight Data Exchange." The current name implies a robust service

14 General supporting Pub/Sub, although Pub/Sub may not be cost effective for some NextGen functions.



14 F&SDM-L Consider consolidating the F&SDM-L impact analyses for airspace users at the F&SDM-L level for efficiency.

Clarify the delivery of position-derived flight state data to define whether it is delivered via Trajectory Management,

14,16 F&SDM-L/N which is identified at the National level.

General 15 & 16 Figure 13 It is recommended that instead of stating the exact number which may change, just say "following main

functions". This applies to other figures and functions as well. This will make it easy to update and

include future updates, and does not lock it into a specific number. Page 14 states "Flight & State Data

Management is decomposed into nine main functions: Trajectory projection ------etc. More than nine

functions come in to play.



Furth describe the data exchanged between functions. Suggest citing key information exchanged during

19 FCM & others collaboration.

LTCM 20 Figure 15 Consider indicating those responsible for capacity forecast (e.g. airport or local/national NAS office)

Figures 16 &

MSM 22 17 Consider a clear illustration of Civil & Military Coordination in the NAS.

22 MSM Consider adding F&SDM-L, in addition to -N, as an input in support of military tactical control of flights.

Consider adding F&SDM-L, in addition to -N, as an input in support of safety analyses, presuming there is unique

26 SMS local data.

Sat Nav

Correction 28 Figure 19 Consider illustrating how Galileo is forseen to be operative and interoperable with GPS in 2025.

SatNav

Correction This function appears to assume or otherwise rely on a netcentric GPS and GPS augmentation capability that does

28 Processing not exist and is not necessarily planned for the 2025 timeframe.

Recommend resolution of inconsistencies that appear evident within the Separation Management

diagram. In the figure, SM appears as an external source and also sink of data. It also appears as

Source in Inputs and Sink in Outputs tables (in both cases with "Collaboration" stated under data).

SM 29, 30 Recommend that SM be an internal NextGen function.

STCM 31 Figure 21 Define whether the flexible use of airspace concept is included in the STCM.

Surv Data 33 Figure 22 Define whether multilateration is considered as a surveillance source.

Suggest adding TM-L as receiving SIM-L outputs for local trajectory modeling. Suggest adding F&SDM-L as

receiving SIM-L outputs for deriving flight state based on position (unless TM-L is intended as an intermediary for

34 SIM-L this purpose).

In the Input Table of the SIM-L function, the Surveillance Data Collection function is descrubed as

providing "processed surveillance data." The previous page indicates that Surveillance Data Collection

provides "Raw surveillance data" to SIM-L. The latter seems consistent with the subfunctions described

Surv Data/SIM-L/SIM-N 34 , for each, as the actual data processing seems to take place in SIM-L.

35 SIM-N Would it be more efficient to have SIM-L drive to TM-L (instead of SIM-N)?

S&SA/S&S

M-N/S&SM- 37 Figure 25 Indicate whether a fallback system is foreseen (or not) in the case of failure, cyberattacks or terrorism.

Indicat whether SM should have an "online" fucntion to support Search and Rescue to complement S &SA's offline

37 S&SA function.

Who stores all the raw data? The content management function appears to control the published data,

but won't someone have to store all the raw data inputs? There doesn't seem to be a recognition that that

has to be kept track of somewhere. This is probably true for other functions, too, but this one jumped out

at me.

Perhaps this is just understood by everyone to be part of the infrastructure, but an unvoiced assumption

is a danger in this type of architecture diagram, because you can't assume that everyone does

40 fig 26 understand this point

Define the voice communication that is envisioned forTM-L&N as input to TM-L. According to the decision point, this

43 TM-L voice communication seems more in line with SM.

Define whether "departure point to arrival point" in the first paragraph is intended to be fis-to-fix or gate-to-gate, or

44 TM-L something in between.

Indicate whether TM_N represents a trajectory consolidation/integration function, or an enterprise-level common

45 TM-N trajectory algorithm.

46 TM-N Clarify why TM-N would receive "trajectories" from F&SDM-N, as indicated in the table.

Suggest more analysis on the NextGen functions of TM-L and TM-N to refine their roles and relationships

46 TM-N to refine their respective sets of sub-functions/services.

Figure 1 shows the Weather Facilities within the Green Remote Facilities rectangle. Assuming that the

Green rectangle means FAA-owned, consider updating Figure 1 to show the non-FAA-owned Weather

Facilities, as the page states that weather facilities "...could be located at either a remote facility or a

Weather/WIM-L/WIM-N 47 Para 1

Weather NextGen Facility."

Data It is unclear whether the green ovals on Figure 30 include the FAA weather sensors. Consider a

47 Collection modification to indicate that raw weather data (terminal dopler weather data) flows back to NWS.

Define how ATM and Weather (impacts of weather forecasts and reports on flow management, strategic and tactical

48 Figure 31

Weather ATM, etc.) should be coordinated and from which NextGen "box."

Information Consider a reduction of nine functions. There appears to be overlap between Airspace Impact Analysis,

Management Meteorlogical Data for DST and Trajectory based products, as well as an illustration of two Data

48 and 51 (Local) AND Publication functions (weather and system).

This figure shows a lot of consumers of the "national weather presentation" - I assume the author means

consumer of that portion of the 4-D cube - afterall NextGen is supposed to be more machine to machine

50 Figure 32 rather than the current model of men studying forecast/prediction displays

Considering the move towards more automated collaboration by 2025, it appears that signifcantly more

voice comms is illustrated than expected (as in Figure 32). Recommend removing Voice from the

illustration in situations where it serves as backup, illustrating only those instances in which Voice is

primary.



An SV-1 should allow a quick understanding of systems distribution: however, some points are not obvious: (1) It is

not easy to see the aircrafts can be connected to an EMB and so they can consume Net Centric Data; (2) The

principle of distributed NextGen nodes should be simply graphically represented. The purpose of SV-1 as specified

by DoDAF is the presentation of the distribution of systems. This could be the physical or logical representation. In

the present diagram there are systems (aircrafts, satellites) services and logical users. There are some

Conclusions contradictions with the NASEAF V2.

The SV-1 should be described in several views:

• One diagram for the inter-nodes interactions, with a stressed point for the distribution of net-centric nodes

• One diagram for the inter-systems interactions

• One diagram for the different layers of the architecture: (1) aircraft (2) remote facilities (3) NetxGen Nodes

Facilities (4) Stakeholders

The SV1p should not characterize the communication link (data, voice) but just identify interfaces between system

nodes. Even the SV1 should not refer to communication systems. But it could be your choice. The communication

Recommendat links are the purpose of SV2.

ions The service description should be transferred in a dedicated view.





Consider modification of the document to indicate that the information within the aircraft needs to flow into

the system. The concern for voice versus data, in light of ED-138 VOIP standards, may be overdone. All

pg 7-52 data should be recorded within the system for the time period required for review or investigation.

Recommende What are the trend Analysis in Safety Mgt, Systems and Services Analysis and Mgt? Safety Mgt, Systems and

d Deletions Services Analysis and Mgt do not refer to the Enterprise Services Mgt. Is it OK?

Just for my information: I saw nothing, which could look like to an ATM operational picture (i.e. all aircrafts with all

information at a given or real time).

I am not convinced describing services in the SV1 is the proper way. In my belief services should be in SV-4 or in

dedicated view as specified in DoDAF V2



Other Other Functionality to interface with DoD systems that track space debris entering into earth's atmosphere and

comments comments entering flight path of very-high-flying (60K+ feet) future aircraft?

Comment









appropriate for this review?









formatting issues x



x



x





x









x

x Move to general?









x









x

x



x







x



x







x







x

x









x



x









x Consdolidate with line 24?



x



x









How to include the diagrams?

x discuss on Friday



x



x







x



x



x



x



x



x

x More expansion in Thales

comment re SESAR



integrate with FNM below?







2 graphics

x









x



x

x









x









x









x







x merge with similar?







x



x

x







x



x







x consider w cisco &Boeing



x



x FTI-Harris









x added additional









x



x



x



x



x

x removed some detail at the

end, and merged FNM similar

comment









IS "No" needed?







x Also mentioned by LMCO









x merge with similar comments

in 53?







x



x

x



x

x





x

x







x



x



x



x









x

x

x









x how do these questions

apply?

x Discuss on Friday









x RTN will provide language



we should be careful not to mix

Nodes (Navigation Facilities)

with Functions/services (Flight

Management)









x Discuss on Friday









x



x





x accurate language?

x Is Cyber an enterprise service?







x Is this part of AIM?







x

x Aren't trajectories part of Flight

and SDM?



x



x

x





x



x









x



x

x



x

x

x

x



x LinQuest









x

x

x





x









x

x

x



x









X Boeing



x



x



x

x



x









x



x



x







x







RTN to provide lang









x









x

x









Boeing

EA Page Object

SV-2









General

General

General



General







General Security









General Security









General NAS Network









General









General

General Figures 3,4,5,6,& 7



General Figure 3,4,5,6 & 7









i





i





i and 3



i Figure 1



Figure 1

i figure 1





Data

i figure 1







i figure 1





i figure 1





i figure 1



i figure 1





i figure 1





i Fig 1 and others







I,ii Figures 1 and 2

I,ii Figures 1 and 2



ii figure 2





Voice

ii figure 2



i figure 1





ii figure 2









ii figure 2









ii figure 2









1 Overview







Paragraph 4 and

1 others

General 1 Command and

Control Information

Flow



Weather

1 Information Flow



1

Surveillance - figure

Surveillance 3 3

3 Figure 3

Weather 4 Figure 4



Weather 5 Figure 5



4 figure 4

Weather

4 Figure 4

Figure 4







Aeronautical 5

6 figure 6

Flight Info Flow



C2 7 Figure 7





6, 7 Figure 6 & 7





General Figures

Remark





This document includes a comprehensive list of external systems with which the NAS will

interface (Airport Stakeholder Operations, International ATC Stakeholder Operations, etc).

These systems are shown on one external network segment. Recommend including a

reference a depiction of how connectivity external to the NAS is expected to work. x

Specify how Oceanic and Cross-Border operations are integrated into this view. x

Consider a reference to the color code association back to SV-1. x

Consider the addition of netcentric data to the communications links, as in SV1, where the

links are shown as voice, data and Net-Centric Data. x

Consider describing the security functions of the gateway: This is an end-to-end security,

so the external stakeholders are managed about the security keys. This involves the

aircrafts as well. The security functions must be described such as authorisation,

authentication and accountability. x

Recommend adding a "Security Services" object to "Enterprise Wide Operations". Citing

the "NAS Enterprise Security Gateway" on the edge of the NAS IT Infrastructure Cloud, as

the sole cyber security object at this level of abstraction is misleadingly insufficient.

Threat vectors exist well beyond exclusively "external" interfaces. Adding the additional

"Security Services" object is an appropriate complement, and illustrative of the SOA Core

Services, Security Services, cited in the SV-4. x



The NAS communications infrastructure should be able to provide an end-to-end IP link

between NAS net-centric nodes and aircrafts, whatever the physical media used (i.e HF,

Data Link, fibre, internet, etc…). Additionally it must be managed the mobility of these

aircrafts in the tactical Network. DTS Access is a starting point but to be elaborated. The

NATO has developed the concept of Networking Information Infrastructure

Communication Services which allows hidings all physical medias to services and just

presents an interface service. When combining this concept with a MoM , we get an end-

to-end connections between services on heterogeneous medias. x







Consider enhancing key information is missing from these views surrounding data latency

and performance requirements. Need to gain a better understanding of the performance

requirements definitions built into the communications links (consumer based) especially

around any SLAs that must be maintained





the uniqueness of the operating environment.



you will more than likely construct to the lowest common denominator

o Seems to be driving towards a more composite architecture and that is not necessarily

going to be possible based on some of the performance requirements of the system

o Additional run-time management and governance engines will add additional overhead x place in

to the calls and have an impact on performance. General?

Recommend clarification of architecture description to illustrate whether the satellite

communications capability will be provided by commercial, military or a combination of

these systems. Use of commercial systems has security implications that must be

addressed. Suggest a review of SV-5 (Mapping of Operational Nodes to System Nodes)

to assess OV-3 impact. x

Various nodes are shown with different colors, if the colors identify some category etc,

then we need to have legend at the bottom or on page 2 where terminology is clarified. x

Recommend inclusion of NAS enterprise Security Gateway and DTS/Access Network in

the OV-3 matrix as well as here. There will be Role Base Access/authentication, the

security information will be exchanged. x

Consider a more direct link to ensure the timely distribution of critical data and

instructions. The diagram shows that the only technology being supported to distribute

the outputs from the Service Delivery Nodes and the Enterprise Wide Operations to the

A/G Communications for onward passage to the aircraft is "SOA/MOM over IPV6 over

SONET." x

Consider defining technology for communication from aircraft-ground, aircraft to aircraft

and aircraft to satellite (nav, wx and comm), as technology is defined for the NAS IT

infrastructure. x

Describe whether "Surveillance Data Collection (ADS-B)" wil be responsible for the receipt

of ADS-B positional data from aircraft and vehicles on the ground, or whether it is covered

by "Surveillance Data Collection (Surface)." x

Recommend changinge the name of "NAS IT Infrastructure" cloud to "NAS Enterprise IT

Infrastructure." x

Satcom data capability does not appear to be explicitly called out in this figure.

Recommend explicit depiction of satellite data link in this figure x

Review the upper left of the diagram, as the 2nd group of icons (radio tower and dish)

appear to be missing a green box describing the type of information transmitted to/from

the aircraft. Indicate whether these represent the DATACOM links.

x

Indicate the link technology that is envisioned for weather data collection. It may be useful

in 2025 to have a general purpose DATACOM link that is used for clearances, 4DT, ADS-

C, and weather observations rather than separate comm links for each application.

x

Consider showing some sensors/comms connected directly to the NAS infrastructure as

described on page 2, DTS/Access Network. There may be latency concerns with sensors

connect through regional security gateways. x

Consider whether to illlustrate ADS-B messages distributed to radio stations via the

vendor network as a separate cloud or an external interface to a vendor. Likewise,

ACARS data (or its replacement) is distributed via the vendor network. x

Indicate whether there be FAA owned weather satellites in 2025. Indicate whetherr

weather data collection flow through the NWS and Vendor systems. x

The external stakeholders should have a separate security gateway. Should the purple

government systems connect thru a different access network and gateway from external

vendors/airlines to show potentially a different level of security or QoS? x

Indicate whether connectivity from external clients to the external gateway will be VPN

over Internet to the gateway. Consider illustrating the internet be shown as a cloud in this

diagram. x

The core infrastructure should be considered to be dual stack even in 2025 as it will not Cisco to

be fully provide

remaining

Explain why is there no Security Gateway for “Authorized Clients, Consumers, Support

Systems” assuming these are non-FAA systems. (dark blue boxes > Third party providers

and Contractors, purple boxes > “other” federal elements, per the SV-1 description)

Although the users are authorized to connect the NAS, assume that access will be limited.

This Gateway will have a different security policy compared to the Enterprise Security

Gateway. x

Recommend eliminating the specific technologies for NAS IP Infrastructure, such as IPv6

over SONET. The 2025 view should not be tied to particular current technology x

Indicate whether the authorized R&D consumers, flight ops and airlines need voice

connectivity thru the NAs infrastructure to either the aircraft or ATC. Indicate whether the

other government agency functions need voice connectivity, or only mil separation

management among mil stakeholders. x

Indicate whether there be a separate voice network or VOIP over the data network in

2025. x

The external stakeholders should have a separate security gateway. Should the purple

government systems connect thru a different access network and gateway from external

vendors/airlines to show potentially a different level of security or QoS?

Indicate whether there should be a vender supplied voice connectivity, such as ARINC. x

Consider using a means for diffentiating switched and fixed services and flows between

components in this diagram to show a generic cloud with all systems interconnected.

Showing actual flows would be beneficial unless the objective is to purely show

subsystem components. x

Define how is DTS service is adapted for transport over the IPv6 or IPv4/IPv6 dual stack

architecture. Illustrate whether the adapation is done on the end systems, in the DTS

access nework, or at the core edge. Explain whether circuit emulaiton over IP adaptation

for non native IP services (ie DTS that isn't converted to IP native) is transported over the

network as Pseudo Wire Emulation. x



Recommend separation of disparate data types into separate, mutually exclusive flows.

The combination of air traffic control and system management communications into a

Command and Control Information Flow does not adequately separate these business

application and infrastructure management, respectively, communications classes. x







"Flight Information Flow" should be "Flight Data Information Flow" for consistency with OV-

3.

Recommend the inclusion of command and control information flow in the SV-1p diagram,

even though it contains voice flows. Clarify whether "flight management" in the SV-1p

diagram includes C&C information flow in the SV-2 voice diagram, x

Consider clarifying language to prevent the interpretation that hazardous weather

conditions are only disseminated via NOTAMs as part of the Areonautical Information

Flow, which implies that 4DT is not aware of these conditions x

Define whetherr ePIREPS are part of the Weather Information Flow or the Aeronautical

Information Flow. x

Indicate whether "Surveillance Data Collection" for LRR, SRR and Surface includes

military radar x

Recommend including UAS's as part of the surveillance information flow. x

Recommend illustrating Aircraft Flight Management in Figure 4 for Weather Information.

x

Recommend illustrating Aircraft Flight management in figure 4 SV-2 for Aeronautical

Information. x

Clarify the meanings of the dish and tower icons in the top center of the diagram, and

whether these represent DATACOM ground stations. x

Define whether the green boxes on Weather Data Collection (aircraft and UAS) represent

FAA-owned or vendor supplied assets. x

The CONOPS imply that "weather data" flow through the NWS. Recommend clear

illustration of NWS as external stakeholder for weather. The Figure indicates FAA-owned

infrastructure x

The table seems incomplete for auth clients/remote facilities. x Cisco

The diagram appears to be missing a description of the remote station. Indicate the link

technology that is envisioned for flight information. x

Define whether the Service Delivery Node includes Airport Arrival/Departure Management

processing. x

Consider moving the representation of Information flow to SV-4, focusing in SV2 on how

physical medias support the interfaces described in SV1. x

NAS IT Infrastructure cloud shows SOA/MOM over IPv6 over SONET. Consider including

IPv4. Indicate the interaction of information exchange with legacy systems and

international air traffic (use 6TO4 or ISATAP protocols). x

Suggest differentiating or identifying local vs national in the SV-2 figures. SV-3

distinguishes between "Local" and "National." x

EA Page Object Remark Comment

SV-4

Recommend providing a reference to a mapping the expected business requirements

to the NAS capabilities that drive this functional description. In this context, business

requirements will be Functional Mission Capabilities the NAS will be expected to x

support in 2025. Recommend this mapping be conducted in such a way as to show the appropriate

General relationship mapping between Mission Applications and Mission Services. for this doc?

Recommend this document include or reference a OV-4 functional descriptions

ofintegrations between the NAS and external systems. Civilian Air Traffic Management

is a subset of an overall Aviation Ecosystem, which is, in turn, a subset of other

ecosystems such as Commercial Transportation,National Defense, Law Enforcement,

Emergency/Disaster Response, etc. NAS maybe increasingly integrated with

General Automation Systems in each of these ecosystems. x



Recommend an illustration of how the standards in the NAS 2025 TV-1 correlate with

General the Systems described inthe SV-4. x

Consider placing more emphasis on peering between autonomous systems. We x

should assume there is a peering arrangement between systems which would allow for

political/organizational boundaries and allow more flexible scaling. By 2025, there will

be extremely powerful (and small) processing systems. At that time, it might make

sense to divide geographical coverage into much smaller areas, and provide for peering

between them. Peering will also be necessary between terrestrial flight and orbit

insertion control systems, between countries, and between military and civilian control

systems. It should be noted that peering is covered in SV 1 as an SOA architecture. SV

1 is all about peering and how subsytem information between supplier and

processor/subscriber /operator are isolated, vs. which ones are net centric available .

We assume the net centric data bus means universal connectivity and bidirectional

data/voice flow/acquistion where appropriate, and unidirectional to all bus subscribers

General where appropriate.

Consider clarifying the definition of boxes touching each other in figure 9. Arrows which

touch the perimeter of a box that contains multiple functions imply that all functions in

General that box are connected to the associated network.

Consider augmenting Services Provisioning Management to include additional x

capability for testing, simulation, isolation, and modeling in the system. In such a

complex system with so many moving parts, it will be difficult to model using off-line

tools. There is currently research in the academic community on methods to isolate

(redundant) modules and test them “in situ” in a live system. Such an approach would

not be advisable in today's networks, however over time, it may be possible to test new

logic modules in a live network with sufficient safeguards to prevent disruptions,

perhaps monitored by artificial intelligence and expert systems. Such a test system

would also support logic to isolate and mitigate disruptions in the working system as

well. Coincident with this requirement will be datatypes to be marked “test-only” so that

adjacent modules and services can ignore them. Today, testing, simulation and

modeling is traditionally on external test systems that do not affect live operations in the

NAS. If such a plan to migrate to live testing is considered, it much be carefully

engineered with appropriate caution.

General

Consider a provision for a statistical analysis and data mining tool as a service. This x

could be used to judge the overall effectiveness of the routing and control systems

against criteria such as econometrics (i.e. fuel economy) and resource utilization (i.e.

ground systems). Analysis at both local and system-wide level could be performed and

the results used to drive real-time policy and management decisions automatically.

General

Consider that the architecture should be designed to mitigate internal attacks launched x

by compromised nodes in the network. Although the network will operate as a private,

self contained network, the complexity and reliance on standard protocols may still

make it a target for cyber attack. A defense-in-depth strategy is suggested, with dual

authentication between communicating nodes, non-repudation of information, and

sophisticated intrusion detection. In addition, such an architecture will require multiple

levels of trust (from non-trusted, to semi-trusted, to fully trusted) for each node and

General each message as well as revocation lists and proxy services.

Consider including that, the event normal communications paths are degraded, a x

constellation of active nodes can provide a limited backup. In 2025, UA and other

airborne platforms will also serve as communication nodes in a Mobile Ad-hoc Network

(MANET) to provide beyond-line-of-sight transmissions to boost the situational

awareness of allaircraft and ground nodes on the network. Not only will these nodes

increase overall Situational Awareness, they will feed critical information to the decision-

General makers.

o Performance and uptime requirements might preclude .NET and Java providers due

to SLA and performance constraints



gear) which I am not sure would suffice for this application

o Would increase the information to include the status of the current system

(implemented, proposed, etc) and if it will need to be replaced as part of this effort

General x Deloitte

2 Consider renaming the "Mission Services" layer to "Mission Applications and Services." x

Not all of these applicatioon offer an SOA service interface that will be used by other

applications or services.

2 Consider renaming the "Support Services" layer to "Distribution Services" or perhaps x

"Application Services" for clarity. The term "support" is often used for offline tools

supporting online automation (i.e. support complex).

3 Recommend the two Collaboration Services mentioned serve as examples of likely a x

Detailed

larger number of Collaboration Service capabilities. Unless there are specific NAS

SV-4

business requirements that drive the choice of two specific Collaboration Services

System

mentioned (Instance Messaging and Whiteboard), the numerous others (presence,

Functionalit

email, VOIP, Web Conferencing tools, wikis, blogs,mashups, etc) could be mentioned

y

as well

Description

3 Recommend this document address legacy Systems/Programs or qualify this document IBMx

Detailed to exclude legacy Systems/Programs. This document appears to inclusively address the

SV-4 entire, “National AirspaceSystem”, “System Functionality Description”. It does not

System appear to address legacy NAS systems and programs that might include other

Functionalit technologies.

y

Description

3 Clarify whether "Data Comm in the lower right of the ""Technical Infrastructure x

Services" box represents general data commuication, or is focused on the "Data

Comm" program. Provide rationale for this placement.

3 Consider merging boundary protection, transport level protection terrestrial wan and x

data comm into a single "network comm" function. Determine whether the security

oriented functions should be part of security services in SOA core services.



3 Consider merging reliable messaging into message transport. Determine whether x

message confidentiality should be part of security services.

3 Consider renaming mediation as "enterprise patterns" if it serves as the FMR (camel) x

function.

3 Consider splitting request/response from publish/subscribe. The first is SOAP x

implemented by CXF the second is JMS implemented by ActiveMQ. Regardless these

two services are distinct and separate products.

3 Define whether the message routing funtion is IP routing or perhaps JMS or something x

else.

3 Define wether message confidentiality (encryption) should be part of security services. x



3 It appears that a service for the ESB container (JBI or OSGI) is missing x

3 Indicate whether NAS SOA Core services are aligned on the DoD NCES. If so, this

SOA Core could ease future interoperability with military.

Services x

3 Consider defining the relationship between SWIM and NAS SOA Core services.

SOA Core In SESAR, SWIM points out the backbone where the ATM stakeholders (ATC centres,

Services aircrafts etc..) are connected to exchange services. x

3 Figure SV- Assure that Security is accurately displayed as part of the SOA core services, and it is

4 also distributed over other functions. x

3 The SWIM technical architecture includes layers/functions for transport, messaging,

data representation, interface management, QoS (reliability and security) and enterprise

service management. Recommend ensuring that each of these are included in the SV-

4. Data representation or ESM don't appear to be in SOA core services.

??

3 Determine whether Content Discovery duplicates Service Discovery from interface

management, and whether it is necessary at the higher level. x

3 Determine whether there should be a data acquisition function for each content

manager. Consider merging acquisition into content management. Consider adding

surveillance data management. Consider adding flight data acquisition. x

3 Consider merging flow contingency, short term capacity and long term capacity

functions into "capacity management." x

3 Define whether Flight & State Data Management overlap or use flight data

management. Consider renaming to "Flight Plan Management". Define whether

Trajectory Management should be a support service, and/or include route expansion

and conversion?. x

3 Consider naming "System and Service Analysis" to "Service Management" x

Consider describing the intent, if any, to ensure at what stage the mission services

Mission defined are aligned with those of SESAR, and are at the same depth. It appears that

Services there are discrepancies between services of SESAR and of NextGen. x

3 Consider the inclusion of services that appear to be missing: Airspace Management,

Mission Demand & Capacity Balancing, Runway Management, Airport Surface Management,

Services Aerodrome Management, Search & Rescue x

3 Consider expanding "client" into separate functions for ATC enroute, terminal and

surface GUI clients. Browser does not seem necessary as a separate function.

Determine whether it should be provided by a lower layer, such as Collaboration

Services. x

3 Consider merging portal and admin portal x

3 Consider providing notification and alerts through the mission application/services,

rather than as a separate function. x RTN

3 Consider adding functions for certificate management and key management x

3 Support

Services::

Data

Acquistion

Services Consider adding Environmental Data. x

3 Administrat

ive Define who will take care of the information management topics such as charging,

Services liability, IPR, copyright and others. x

3 Sys

Function

Descritpion

TO BE Consider more detailed definition between Civil/Military/Governmental aspects

3

x is the EMB

Describe the purpose of the Enterprise Messaging Bus, as compared to the Messaging mentioned

Services. in SV-4?

3

Recommend replacing "Boundary Protection" [sic] and "Transport-level Protection"

Technical objects with "Cyber Security" object. This would include Data At Rest (DAR), insider

Infrastructu threat, malware, containment, continuity of operations, and safety of flight issues related

re Services to cyber threat beyond the firewall (boundary) and secure data transport services. x

3

Detailed Recommend Service Desk and Support be removed from this diagram and “IT Support

SV-4 Systems” be included in its place. Service Desk systems would be part of a larger NAS

Systems support infrastructure, which would include systems such as Configuration

Management Databases (CMDB),,Process Manage Systems and Asset Management

Functionalit

y Systems, as well as Service DeskS,ystems. These support systems should be design

Descriptionto support ITIL conformantSupport Process. x

3 Recommend adding Run-Time Infrastructure Monitoring function to the Enterprise

Governance box. This functions acts as traditional Network Operations Center and

performs real-time status monitoring. x

General 3 Figure SV- Recommend that SV-4 is Functional Decomposition Diagram of System Functions

4 described in SV1p maps with the SV-1 functionalities. x

3,8,

12 Detailed

SV-4

Systems

Functionalit Clarify "Administrative Services" collection from the standpoint of security such as

y managing security keys, setting up security accounts, etc, unless this function is to be

Description covered by Security Services Data Access Management function. x

3,9

SOA Core

Collaborati

on

Services Suggest a new "email" funtion. It is not necessary to limit to real-time collaboration. x

3, 12

Administrat

ive

Services

Functional

Description Suggest changing "Database Admin" to "Data Storage Admin" to allow for function to

Table cover emerging persistent storage technologies like Distributed Object Caching. x

4

Functional

layer Suggest that "testing" and 'training" are key elements of Aministrative services, and

Description should be called out in the top level. x

7 Table Recommend changing "Service Adapter" to "Service Adaptation." x

7 Service adapter is called service adaptation on page 3. For the description this function

is not adapatation (i.e. configuation) data management, but rather SOA adapters. I

RECOMM would think this function should be provider by the mission application/service rather

END than as a generic service. Do we need an adaptation function? Suggest a more robust

DELETE description. x

9 RECOMM soa collaboration services - do we need services for ftp? Http? Sms? Mms? Voip?

END

DELETE x

Sounds good for a service description but this view does not comply with the SV4 as

described in NASEAF V2.

Services are particular system functions. But a service map is not a system functionality

RECOMM description.

END For my information: Do you plan an upgrade of the NASEAF on the basis of the DoDAF

DELETE V2? x Thales

Use the Service-Orientation Pattern is the proper way to success building the NAS

architecture. But services do not deal uniquely with systems.

A service must be defined. From the definition “A service is a task performed by an

entity for the benefit of another” it can be said everything related to interactions between

entities deals with services. An entity must be understood in a large meaning and could

be organisation, operational node or system. These entities deal with different

engineering methods and processes. Therefore services have to be considered from

different engineerings which depend on the level of interactions where the service is

involved (between organisation or between systems). Services should be considered

from the different viewpoints as they are defined in Architecture Framework, namely

Operational, System and Technical:

• Operational viewpoint: Services, namely operational service, are induced by analysing

interactions on boundaries between operational entities performing activities in a global

business process. In this viewpoint there are Human-Human Human-Machine and

Machine-Machine interactions. The service-orientation allows establishing commitments

between operational entities by defining contract between producers and consumers.

• System viewpoint: In this viewpoint there are only Machine-Machine and Human-

Machine interactions. Therefore the operational service must be refined in services

which are effectively provided by systems, namely service-on-system. In that viewpoint,

services are induced from the analysis of the functional decomposition of systems and Thales

EA Page Object

OV-2_3

General



1

Figure 2



4 Table 1 OV-2 Definitions



OV-3 1 Overview









2 Overview

General 2 thru 16 Matrix







3 Matrix









2, 3 Matrix





2 thru 16 Matrix





2 thru 16 Matrix

3 OV-3 Matrix



3 & 11 OV3 Matrix









4 Matrix, Items 31-41



4 Matrix, Items 31-41



3,4, etc





10 #163, 166

9 OV-3 Matrix

Matrix Items 180-186



10

10 OV-3 Matrix









12 Matrix

OV-3 Matrix

13.14 Matrix Items 239-266

Matrix Items 272-278

15 OV-3 matrix



Global OV-3 Matrix



General OV-3 matrix

Global

Remark



Consider developing a robust development of the OV-5 and an important operational view, versus a

more robust OV-2. X

Consider placing Actors within Nodes in the Operational View and Table rather than illustrating both

on the same level. X

Consider defining explicit elements for Navigation Operations. Define whether the Navigation

Operations are part of Infrastructure Operations. X

Consider defining the standard version in the first paragraph. DODAF v2 final draft has a different

title for the OV-3 X

In order to be DoDAF compliant, it is recommended that the matrix be augmented with operational

nodes in additional to the activities already included. x

Consider acknowledgment that the matrix is probably not complete regarding an OV-3. OV-3s are

also to show how and why the information is exchanged. Why may be indicated in your "Flow

Category" column. "How" seems to be missing - not sure if you intended that. X

Recommend adding a column for information assurance: trust and security with a note "TBD for

future". This will highlight the importance of security and information assurance since it is already

included in SV-2s. x



PIREPS should also be directly provided to the Aircraft Flight management System of other aircraft X

Illustrate how the "hazardous advisories" provided via the Weather Information Management service

corresponds with, or differs from the Aeronautical Information Management Service/functions,

including "hazardous weather information." Indicate whether "hazardous eather information" in the

aeronautical information flowo intends to represent NOTAMs, as indicated in SV-2. Indicate

whether there is a consistent NOTAM weather picture provided via the Weather Information Flow,

given the separation. Recommend that NOTAMs, SIGMETS, etc be included int he Weather

Information Flow. x

Consider augmenting the Matrix to distinguish “voice” information exchange elements from other

“data” information exchange elements, i.e., what elements traverse the purple line on the SV-1, vs.

the blue/black lines. x



Consider providing an augmented OV-3, or additional artifact to convey "Required Communication

Performance" for each data communication exchange. x

Recommend clarification of Aircraft Beacon Transponder, which is shown as Sending activity in the

matrix, but does not map with Figure 3 SV-2 Surveillance Information diagram. x

Recommend clarification of Aircraft Flight Management, which is shown as the receiving activity in

the matrix, but does not map with Figure 3 SV-2 Surveillance Information Flow diagram.

x

If items 31-41 are to represent all information provided from an aircraft to ground systems, it seems

like the following may be missing: Departure readiness status, current Out prediction (unless these

are implied under local trajectory management.) x

Consider including aircraft wake sensors, following aircraft weather sensors, to allow for future

aircraft wake sensor information to ground sensors.

Item 41 identifies aircraft weather sensors. A new item could be added to allow for aircraft wake

sensors providing future aircraft wake sensor info to ground systems. x

"response to credible security threats" is correct, but overly limited. Consider expanding to

encompass activities with at minimum primary and recommend to secondary responsibility to

address NG and NG stakeholder threat surface area, including physical and cyber threat vectors. x

Recommend identification of Aircraft Navigation Avionics in Figure 5 SV-2. Illustrate activity

associated with aircraft, as it is identified in the matrix. x

Consider making ruway configurations, arrival/departure procedures that are currently available,

etc. for each airport available to the aircraft, airlines and planning tools for collaboration purposes. It

is not clear in which information flow this data is included. x

Aircraft Navigation Avionics is not identified in Figure 4 SV-2. There should be some way of

identifying activity associated with aircraft since they are identified in the matrix.

Items 212, 215, 223 indicate that “Surveillance Information Management – National” supplies

“local” surveillance presentation information to a subset of consumers (Airport, International ATC,

Trajectory Management – Local). Consider that “local” in the content description should actually be

“national” for these items, unless the intent to imply filtering or other work in the service/function

provider on behalf of the particular consumer x

Satellite navigation should be identified in Figure 5 SV-2.

Consider including ground as well as air components in Trajectory Management x

Consider including local weather to Trajectory Management x

Recommend mapping Aircraft Flight managmenet to Figure 4 (SV-2) in the Weather Information

diagram x

Information is sent from Aircraft Flight Management. We need to identify it in the OV-2 figures.

There are more instances in the matrix.

Information sent from "Separation Management and received by "System & Services Analysis"

includes control information and system status, same is true for several others such as #196 and

197. Is it necessary to separate each type of information or can we show it by listing all different

types of information sent by one node to another node? (there are more)