LRIT Ad hoc Working Group
by Arsenio Dominguez
Dear Sir or Madame,
We would appreciate if you can send us information regarding venue, hotels and documents for the forthcoming meeting of the Working Group in Hamburg from 12 to 14 of June as this Administration is preparing a delegate to attend the meeting.
Regards,
Arsenio Dominguez
Technical Adviser
Permanent Mission of Panama to IMO
Panama Maritime Authority
40 Hertford Street
London W1J 7SH
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7409 2255 (Ext. 218)
Fax: +44 20 7493 4499
e-mail: adominguez(a)panamauk.org
17 years, 9 months
Final document from Hamburg meeting of Ad Hoc Working Group: extraction of key policy decisions required
by Peverett, Tracy
Hello,
Further to our last meeting in Hamburg at which we determined it would
be useful to have a document extracting key remaining policy decisions
required of the Committee as an aid in decision making, attached please
find the draft document. The majority of issues highlighted in the
attached are extracts from the draft Costing and Billing standard, with
#15 being an extract from the Testing document. You will recall that
issues #11 and #13 were not extracted from the other documents but were
thought to be of importance to the successful implementation of the
International LRIT system and thus worth noting to the Committee.
As with the other documents, your input is requested no later than close
of business this Friday, June 29th. Please cc me directly on any
correspondence via the reflector at peverettt(a)dfo-mpo.gc.ca in order
that I can ensure that all comments have been received.
Please note that an updated DDP guidance document will not be circulated
this week. The DDP OPI and the Chair will be meeting next week with the
Secretariat to develop a high-level guidance document from the Ad hoc
group that will complement Secretariat inputs on the same subject. The
guidance document, which is a deliverable of the working group, will be
circulated via the reflector once drafted.
Best regards
Tracy
Tracy Peverett
Senior Policy Analyst
Canadian Coast Guard
Tel: 1-613-990-4046
Fax: 1-613-998-3255
e-mail: peverettT(a)dfo-mpo.gc.ca
18 years
Re: [Ccglrit-gcclrit] NOA Issue
by Nicolaos Charalambous
Although I have refrained from getting involved in your communications
thus far you may wish to consider the following:
MSC 80 instructed COMSAR 10 to ensure that the ship should not be
required to transmit to the LRIT Tracking Service or the LRIT Data
Centre, any additional information (except the transmission of a notice
that the ship is proceeding to a particular port, to enable the LRIT
Data Centre to provide the port State with the LRIT information to which
it is entitled) and that the transmission of LRIT information should not
require any intervention by shipboard personnel (see MSC 80/24,
paragraph 5.97).
This decision/instruction was taken after a heated debate and with the
intention not to cause any changes to the existing practices of NOA
which in some cases are governed by national laws.
Nicolas
>>> John.G.Bowman(a)uscg.mil 26/06/2007 13:14 >>>
Bill, et al:
I raised this very same issue to Julian during the DDP breakout, even
referencing the same section Saeid mentions below. Julian said the NOA's
would not be transmitted nor validated via the LRIT system. He did not
say how NOA's would be transmitted, but did say Port State requests
would be based on the honor system that the Contracting Government did
receive an NOA.
v/r,
John G. Bowman
Project Officer - Amver/CASP/LRIT
USCG OSC
304-264-2667
John.G.Bowman(a)uscg.mil
-----Original Message-----
From: ccglrit-gcclrit-bounces(a)lists.ncf.ca
[mailto:ccglrit-gcclrit-bounces@lists.ncf.ca] On Behalf Of Cairns,
William
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 1:30 PM
To: ccglrit-gcclrit(a)lists.ncf.ca
Cc: Bertorelli, John; PeverettT(a)DFO-MPO.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [Ccglrit-gcclrit] NOA Issue
Colleagues,
Thanks very much to Saeid for the input on the NOA issue. I regret
that I was unable to speak with Julian about it before we all started to
catch flights out of Hamburg. I will look closer at the IDC spec to
ensure there are no inconsistencies in it with regard to NOA. This issue
likely needs to be addressed in the DDP spec as well and the comments
below are hereby forwarded to Julian Longson, the DDP OPI, who is
currently reviewing the entire DDP document with the IMO IT division.
If anyone has comments on NOA - - or any other matter - - as it may
effect the IDC spec, please let me know as soon as possible. Thanks to
all for your input.
Best regards,
Bill Cairns, FRIN
Principal Navigation Engineer
Commandant (CG-3PWN) USCG
William.R.Cairns(a)uscg.mil
V: 202-372-1557
F: 202-372-1930
-----Original Message-----
From: PeverettT(a)DFO-MPO.GC.CA [mailto:PeverettT@DFO-MPO.GC.CA]
Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 5:23 PM
To: ccglrit-gcclrit(a)lists.ncf.ca
Cc: Saeid Khorsandi; Bertorelli, John; Cairns, William
Subject: FW: [Ccglrit-gcclrit] Revised Draft LRIT Costing and
BillingStandard
Hello Saeid
This is to confirm that I received your comments, however they do not
appear to have been received by all on the reflector. For that reason I
have forwarded your e-mail directly to Bill Cairns, and am resending
your comments to the wider reflector as well.
I am also requesting, by means of this e-mail, that my colleague John
Bertorelli check the reflector to try to determine why some messages are
not getting through.
Best regards
Tracy
Tracy Peverett
Senior Policy Analyst
Canadian Coast Guard
Tel: 1-613-990-4046
Fax: 1-613-998-3255
e-mail: peverettT(a)dfo-mpo.gc.ca
________________________________
From: Saeid Khorsandi [mailto:khorsandi@PSO.IR]
Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2007 7:10 AM
To: ccglrit-gcclrit(a)lists.ncf.ca
Cc: Peverett, Tracy
Subject: RE: [Ccglrit-gcclrit] Revised Draft LRIT Costing and Billing
Standard
Hi Bill /All
Following to our conversation within the Hamburg meeting about the NOA
I would like to inform you that as far as you said in last meeting the
NOA is a notice outside of the LRIT system but according to part 4.4 of
Draft Guidance on Setting up and Maintaining the LRIT Data Distribution
Plan :
" Paragraph 16.1.3 contains the standing order for port State tracking.
If the distance from a port is used, then the information from section
11.2.6 must be used in conjunction with this standing order. Although
this is a standing order, a Notice of Arrival (NOA) must still be
transmitted by the Contracting Government through its Data Centre to the
destination Data Centre. The information contained in the standing order
should include, but is not limited to, the following: ship name, IMO
ship identification number, vessel's flag state and the distance from
the Contracting Government's port "
About the access to information as a Port State , as far as you know a
Port State request is always triggered by a Notice of Arrival but who is
responsible for sending the NOA and how? and who will be responsible for
confirming access to the information ? Is there any unique format for
NOA in the LRIT system?
For your information currently the format of NOA are different around
the world and being issued by the agent of ships to the destination port
which the contracting government doesn't have any information about the
ship destination .
Regards
Khorsandi
Senior expert of marine communication
P.S.O - Iran
________________________________
From: ccglrit-gcclrit-bounces(a)lists.ncf.ca
[mailto:ccglrit-gcclrit-bounces@lists.ncf.ca] On Behalf Of Peverett,
Tracy
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 9:23 PM
To: ccglrit-gcclrit(a)lists.ncf.ca
Cc: hhesse(a)imo.org; ncharala(a)imo.org
Subject: Re: [Ccglrit-gcclrit] Revised Draft LRIT Costing and Billing
Standard
Hello, attached please find the following two documents:
1. IDC spec
2. Annex on technical criteria for location of the IDC
Still to come today are the Comms, IDE and testing specs. DDP update
will be circulated next week.
A reminder that comments on all documents must be received no later
than June 29.
Also, given ungoing problems that some of you have been experiencing
with the reflector, it would be appreciated if any comments you might
have on this or any of the other documents be sent to the reflector with
a cc directly to me at peverettt(a)dfo-mpo.gc.ca
<mailto:peverettt@dfo-mpo.gc.ca> I will respond to all e-mails
confirming that the message has been received via the reflector; if not
I will ensure that comments are distributed to the reflector from this
end.
If you have any questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to contact
me directly at peverettt(a)dfo-mpo.gc.ca <mailto:peverettt@dfo-mpo.gc.ca>
Best regards,
Tracy
Tracy Peverett
Senior Policy Analyst
Canadian Coast Guard
Tel: 1-613-990-4046
Fax: 1-613-998-3255
e-mail: peverettT(a)dfo-mpo.gc.ca
_______________________________________________
Ccglrit-gcclrit mailing list
Ccglrit-gcclrit(a)lists.ncf.ca
http://lists.ncf.ca/mailman/listinfo/ccglrit-gcclrit
_______________________________________________
Ccglrit-gcclrit mailing list
Ccglrit-gcclrit(a)lists.ncf.ca
http://lists.ncf.ca/mailman/listinfo/ccglrit-gcclrit
World Maritime Day 2007: IMO's Response to Current Environmental Challenges
--
Disclaimer Notice
This email may contain confidential or privileged information and is intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient you may not disclose, copy, distribute or retain any part of this message or attachments.
If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender immediately via e-mail.
18 years
FW: Revised Draft LRIT Costing and BillingStandard
by Peverett, Tracy
Hello Saeid
This is to confirm that I received your comments, however they do not
appear to have been received by all on the reflector. For that reason I
have forwarded your e-mail directly to Bill Cairns, and am resending
your comments to the wider reflector as well.
I am also requesting, by means of this e-mail, that my colleague John
Bertorelli check the reflector to try to determine why some messages are
not getting through.
Best regards
Tracy
Tracy Peverett
Senior Policy Analyst
Canadian Coast Guard
Tel: 1-613-990-4046
Fax: 1-613-998-3255
e-mail: peverettT(a)dfo-mpo.gc.ca
________________________________
From: Saeid Khorsandi [mailto:khorsandi@PSO.IR]
Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2007 7:10 AM
To: ccglrit-gcclrit(a)lists.ncf.ca
Cc: Peverett, Tracy
Subject: RE: [Ccglrit-gcclrit] Revised Draft LRIT Costing and Billing
Standard
Hi Bill /All
Following to our conversation within the Hamburg meeting about the NOA I
would like to inform you that as far as you said in last meeting the NOA
is a notice outside of the LRIT system but according to part 4.4 of
Draft Guidance on Setting up and Maintaining the LRIT Data Distribution
Plan :
" Paragraph 16.1.3 contains the standing order for port State tracking.
If the distance from a port is used, then the information from section
11.2.6 must be used in conjunction with this standing order. Although
this is a standing order, a Notice of Arrival (NOA) must still be
transmitted by the Contracting Government through its Data Centre to the
destination Data Centre. The information contained in the standing order
should include, but is not limited to, the following: ship name, IMO
ship identification number, vessel's flag state and the distance from
the Contracting Government's port "
About the access to information as a Port State , as far as you know a
Port State request is always triggered by a Notice of Arrival but who is
responsible for sending the NOA and how? and who will be responsible for
confirming access to the information ? Is there any unique format for
NOA in the LRIT system?
For your information currently the format of NOA are different around
the world and being issued by the agent of ships to the destination port
which the contracting government doesn't have any information about the
ship destination .
Regards
Khorsandi
Senior expert of marine communication
P.S.O - Iran
________________________________
From: ccglrit-gcclrit-bounces(a)lists.ncf.ca
[mailto:ccglrit-gcclrit-bounces@lists.ncf.ca] On Behalf Of Peverett,
Tracy
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 9:23 PM
To: ccglrit-gcclrit(a)lists.ncf.ca
Cc: hhesse(a)imo.org; ncharala(a)imo.org
Subject: Re: [Ccglrit-gcclrit] Revised Draft LRIT Costing and Billing
Standard
Hello, attached please find the following two documents:
1. IDC spec
2. Annex on technical criteria for location of the IDC
Still to come today are the Comms, IDE and testing specs. DDP update
will be circulated next week.
A reminder that comments on all documents must be received no later
than June 29.
Also, given ungoing problems that some of you have been experiencing
with the reflector, it would be appreciated if any comments you might
have on this or any of the other documents be sent to the reflector with
a cc directly to me at peverettt(a)dfo-mpo.gc.ca
<mailto:peverettt@dfo-mpo.gc.ca> I will respond to all e-mails
confirming that the message has been received via the reflector; if not
I will ensure that comments are distributed to the reflector from this
end.
If you have any questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to contact
me directly at peverettt(a)dfo-mpo.gc.ca <mailto:peverettt@dfo-mpo.gc.ca>
Best regards,
Tracy
Tracy Peverett
Senior Policy Analyst
Canadian Coast Guard
Tel: 1-613-990-4046
Fax: 1-613-998-3255
e-mail: peverettT(a)dfo-mpo.gc.ca
18 years
Re: [Ccglrit-gcclrit] Revised Draft LRIT Costing and Billing Standard
by Saeid Khorsandi
Hi Bill /All
Following to our conversation within the Hamburg meeting about the NOA I
would like to inform you that as far as you said in last meeting the NOA
is a notice outside of the LRIT system but according to part 4.4 of
Draft Guidance on Setting up and Maintaining the LRIT Data Distribution
Plan :
" Paragraph 16.1.3 contains the standing order for port State tracking.
If the distance from a port is used, then the information from section
11.2.6 must be used in conjunction with this standing order. Although
this is a standing order, a Notice of Arrival (NOA) must still be
transmitted by the Contracting Government through its Data Centre to the
destination Data Centre. The information contained in the standing order
should include, but is not limited to, the following: ship name, IMO
ship identification number, vessel's flag state and the distance from
the Contracting Government's port "
About the access to information as a Port State , as far as you know a
Port State request is always triggered by a Notice of Arrival but who is
responsible for sending the NOA and how? and who will be responsible for
confirming access to the information ? Is there any unique format for
NOA in the LRIT system?
For your information currently the format of NOA are different around
the world and being issued by the agent of ships to the destination port
which the contracting government doesn't have any information about the
ship destination .
Regards
Khorsandi
Senior expert of marine communication
P.S.O - Iran
________________________________
From: ccglrit-gcclrit-bounces(a)lists.ncf.ca
[mailto:ccglrit-gcclrit-bounces@lists.ncf.ca] On Behalf Of Peverett,
Tracy
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 9:23 PM
To: ccglrit-gcclrit(a)lists.ncf.ca
Cc: hhesse(a)imo.org; ncharala(a)imo.org
Subject: Re: [Ccglrit-gcclrit] Revised Draft LRIT Costing and Billing
Standard
Hello, attached please find the following two documents:
1. IDC spec
2. Annex on technical criteria for location of the IDC
Still to come today are the Comms, IDE and testing specs. DDP update
will be circulated next week.
A reminder that comments on all documents must be received no later
than June 29.
Also, given ungoing problems that some of you have been experiencing
with the reflector, it would be appreciated if any comments you might
have on this or any of the other documents be sent to the reflector with
a cc directly to me at peverettt(a)dfo-mpo.gc.ca
<mailto:peverettt@dfo-mpo.gc.ca> I will respond to all e-mails
confirming that the message has been received via the reflector; if not
I will ensure that comments are distributed to the reflector from this
end.
If you have any questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to contact
me directly at peverettt(a)dfo-mpo.gc.ca <mailto:peverettt@dfo-mpo.gc.ca>
Best regards,
Tracy
Tracy Peverett
Senior Policy Analyst
Canadian Coast Guard
Tel: 1-613-990-4046
Fax: 1-613-998-3255
e-mail: peverettT(a)dfo-mpo.gc.ca
18 years
Revised Draft LRIT Costing and Billing Standard
by Peverett, Tracy
Hello,
Attached please find the latest version of the draft Costing and Billing
standard, incorporating inputs from the Hamburg meeting. The following
five documents will be sent separately later today:
1. IDC spec
2. IDE spec
3. Communications spec
4. Testing spec
5. Guidance on location of IDC
An update on the DDP document will be sent next week.
Comments on all documents must be received no later than June 29.
As mentioned at the meeting, given ungoing problems that some of you
have been experiencing with the reflector, it would be appreciated if
any comments you might have on this or any of the other documents be
sent to the reflector with a cc directly to me at
peverettt(a)dfo-mpo.gc.ca <mailto:peverettt@dfo-mpo.gc.ca> I will
respond to all e-mails confirming that the message has been received via
the reflector; if not I will ensure that comments are distributed to the
reflector from this end. Please note that addresses provided to me in
Hamburg that currently appear on the "cc" line of this e-mail are
currently being added to the reflector.
If you have any questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to contact
me directly at peverettt(a)dfo-mpo.gc.ca <mailto:peverettt@dfo-mpo.gc.ca>
Best regards,
Tracy
Tracy Peverett
Senior Policy Analyst
Canadian Coast Guard
Tel: 1-613-990-4046
Fax: 1-613-998-3255
e-mail: peverettT(a)dfo-mpo.gc.ca
18 years
(no subject)
by Urban.HALLBERG＠ec.europa.eu
Urban Hallberg
National Expert
DGTREN/G1 Maritime policy and safety
tel +32(0)2 299 88 57
mobile +46 708 24 63 91
18 years
Re: [Ccglrit-gcclrit] June 12-14 meeting of the Ad hoc Working Group onEngineering Aspects of LRIT, Hamburg Germany
by Chris Snowdon
Craig, all
I've been following this with much interest, but also with some concern.
I'd like to suggest that we simplify the communications document to make
it less prescriptive. The ad hoc group's terms of reference require us
to develop "technical specifications for communications within the LRIT
system network (i.e. between the LRIT Data Centers and International
LRIT Data Exchange and with the LRIT Data Distribution plan".
Therefore, the scope of the communications document should be confined
to these components. To prescribe rigid requirements for how the other
components work - including the shipborne equipment, CSPs and ASPs -
takes us outside of our terms of reference and there is a danger that
what we recommend would be unrealistic or impractical so we shouldn't do
it. Perhaps with the exception of the security requirements and XML
message format (schema), as these apply to the international parts of
the system, everything else should be normative or illustrative.
As Andy notes, we must remember that there are norms, conventions and
standards beyond the field of maritime communications and if we are
over-prescriptive, we may contravene these and produce internal
contradictions. The immediate consequence of this could be increased
cost, but is more likely to be delay caused by development difficulties,
or a lack of interoperability.
Brian's original point about not prescribing the format of the
geographic position, or the time-stamp, is perfectly valid and should be
followed: the requirement is that the ship transmits its position
according to WGS84, and the date and time in UTC, and we should not be
more prescriptive than this. Degrees/minutes/seconds (DMS),
degrees/minutes/decimal minutes (DM) and degrees/decimal degrees (DD),
are all universally-accepted ways of expressing geographic co-ordinates.
There are standard methods for converting between these formats, and we
should neither prescribe nor proscribe any of them. The co-ordinates of
UNLOCODEs - to which we refer in the the comms document - are often
expressed in yet another format, so some on-shore data-conversion is
probably going to be necessary anyway. It is more difficult to convert
between different geodetic models (eg, from WGS84 to a UTM or ETRS89).
The document describing the technical specifications for the
International Data Centre should probably include a section on how ASPs
will provide data to the IDC, but perhaps the practical purpose of this
would really be as much as guidance for those performing the ASP role as
those establishing the IDC? The role of the CSP in that context
probably does not matter so long as they "provide services which link
the various parts of the LRIT system using communications protocols in
order to ensure the end-to-end secure transfer of the LRIT information".
If the CSP also acts as an ASP, they should be regarded as an ASP rather
than a CSP. These distinctions - CSP, ASP, DC - describe functions,
rather than tangible components. An entity performing the CSP role can
also perform the ASP role, and could even perform the DC role. Further,
the ship-ASP-Data Centre path could include more than one CSP, both of
which are "blind" to the data they carry. The main relationship would
probably be between the IDC and the ASP, with the ASP managing the
secondary relationship(s) with the CSP(s) or even acting as a CSP
itself. The relationship between national DCs and the IDE would
probably be similar, so this should be reflected in the IDE and testing
documents.
Ultimately this system is going to be derived from current commercial
offerings and from the actions of individual and groups of sovereign
states. The factors to tie all of this together are the IDE, IDC and
DDP, and we must concentrate on making that happen as smoothly as
possible. Clarity and simplicity are of paramount importance.
Thanks to everyone who's contributed so far.
regards
Christopher Snowdon,
Access Partnership, for Iridium Satellite LLC
________________________________
From: ccglrit-gcclrit-bounces(a)lists.ncf.ca
[mailto:ccglrit-gcclrit-bounces@lists.ncf.ca] On Behalf Of Hayley, Craig
Sent: 01 June 2007 14:43
To: ccglrit-gcclrit(a)lists.ncf.ca
Subject: Re: [Ccglrit-gcclrit] June 12-14 meeting of the Ad hoc Working
Group onEngineering Aspects of LRIT, Hamburg Germany
You make a fair point... I would suggest other interested parties (such
as ASPs wishing to bid on the ASP function for the IDC case) voice their
position. If we allow CSPs to send the shipborne data to the ASP based
upon any "format" or protocol than the ASP will have to absorb the cost
of supporting multiple "formats" and communication protocols. The extra
expense, of course, would likely be pushed back to the customers
(contracting governments).
This topic affects only ASPs and CSPs wishing to form the communication
path to the International Data Centre (not national or regional data
centers).
Based upon e-mails written on this reflector and the discussion in the
Hamburg meeting, the document will be aligned with the "consensus" view.
Regards,
Craig Hayley
System Engineer
Canadian Coast Guard
________________________________
From: ccglrit-gcclrit-bounces(a)lists.ncf.ca
[mailto:ccglrit-gcclrit-bounces@lists.ncf.ca] On Behalf Of Brian Mullan
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 10:37 AM
To: Hayley, Craig
Cc: ccglrit-gcclrit(a)lists.ncf.ca
Subject: Re: [Ccglrit-gcclrit] June 12-14 meeting of the Ad hoc Working
Group onEngineering Aspects of LRIT, Hamburg Germany
Thanks, Craig
Good clarification on the data format from the ships. However, you now
infer that CSPs will perhaps be asked to format messages from ships -
but not all CSPs have signed up to do this (I know of only one). It is
the understanding of many CSPs that the manipulation of the "raw" data
from ships starts at the ASP level. Also, the LRIT coordinator has said
in the past that coordination ("oversight") starts at the ASP level. The
CSP has largely been seen (until now) as purely the comms pipe that
provides the LRIT data from ships to the ASP and to start involving CSPs
in manipulating LRIT data would extend the oversight role.
Writing in specifications for all CSPs would therefore appear to be
premature!
Kind regards
Brian
Brian Mullan
Head, Maritime Safety Services
Inmarsat, 99 City Road, London EC1Y 1AX, UK
Tel: +44 (0)20 7728 1464
Fax: +44 (0)20 7728 1689
Mob: +44 (0)7711 495836
www.inmarsat.com
________________________________
From: Hayley, Craig [mailto:HayleyCR@DFO-MPO.GC.CA]
Sent: 01 June 2007 13:52
To: Brian Mullan
Cc: ccglrit-gcclrit(a)lists.ncf.ca
Subject: RE: [Ccglrit-gcclrit] June 12-14 meeting of the Ad hoc Working
Group onEngineering Aspects of LRIT, Hamburg Germany
Hi All,
I'm please to see a good discussion has developed around this topic.
Hopefully, more discussion on other topics in the documents will be
initiated over the coming week before we meet in Hamburg.
Given the e-mails on this topic, the text (including wording in the
table) should be altered to eliminate any confusion.
I agree that the specific data elements (latititude, longitude, year,
month, day, hour, minute, unique equipment identifier) that the
shipborne equipment transmits is the important information. The "format"
of how those elements are displayed is accomplished by land based
software (not shipborne equipment software). Essentially, an application
piece of software will take those data elements, process them and
display them in a given "format". It has been decided that SOAP messages
(using XML format) will be the back bone of the LRIT communication
system. Thus, the various data elements contained in a given LRIT
message will have to be "formatted" as such. The question of whether
application software residing at the CSP or ASP (not software on the
shipborne equipment) begins to format the data elements into an LRIT
message (SOAP using XML) as defined in the communications document is
another issue. Currently, the document is written such that the CSP (for
the International Data Centre case) begins to build SOAP messages and
pass them to the ASP. We have to define an interface between the ASP and
the CSP for the International Data Centre case. If we allowed CSPs to
transmit information to the ASP using different formats, protocols, etc
than it wouldn't be fair to the ASP. This would add an extra cost burden
on the ASPs given that they would have to support multiple formats,
protocols, etc. Please note that national data centers and regional data
centers are free to define and allow different formats, protocols, etc
from the CSP to the ASP.
The intention of the LRIT communications document shall be to specify
the data elements transmitted by the shipborne equipment as stated in
Brian's previous e-mail:
Shipborne Data Elements:
Latitude -> degrees, minutes and decimal minutes to two decimal places
N / S
Longitude ->degrees, minutes and decimal minutes to two decimal places
E / W
Unique equipment ID -> number
Year -> 4 digit year number
Month -> 2 digit month number
Day -> 2 digit day number
Hour -> 2 digit hour number
Minute -> 2 digit minute number
Regards,
Craig Hayley
________________________________
From: Brian Mullan [mailto:Brian_Mullan@inmarsat.com]
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 6:18 AM
To: Hayley, Craig
Cc: ccglrit-gcclrit(a)lists.ncf.ca
Subject: RE: [Ccglrit-gcclrit] June 12-14 meeting of the Ad hoc Working
Group onEngineering Aspects of LRIT, Hamburg Germany
Hi, Hayley
Many thanks for your email. I can agree that the text of the document is
clear; but that the wording in the table is not consistent and appears
even to contradict the text you quote. My copy of the document shows
wording for 1.1.1.1 that is different:
"The intent of this document is to outline the technical specifications
for communication within the international Long-Range Identification and
Tracking (LRIT) system as stated in the terms of reference of resolution
MSC.211(81)."
Your reference is new text in 2.2.2.4 in the copy that I received
(15-02-2007 LRIT ad hoc WG)
In Table 2, the heading indicates "Parameter provided by LRIT Shipborne
Equipment" and then describes the various elements, including specifying
the format. It is clear to me and others that this method of presenting
the information in the table means that the information transmitted by
the shipborne equipment *must* follow the format written in the table.
This is where the difficulty lies - the wording is over-prescriptive and
does not accord with the wording in 2.2.2.4. My original email showed
how, in Inmarsat C position reporting at least, the way the information
is transmitted. Other shipborne systems probably will have their own
format for presenting data to the ASP.
May I suggest, please, that we stick to requiring that the specific data
elements (unique identifier, latitude/longitude and date/time of the
position) are transmitted from the ship and then only start to prescribe
the format for onward transmission from the ASP? In other words, as long
as the shipborne equipment transmits, as a minimum, the required
elements, any format is acceptable. This allows for all approved
shipborne LRIT systems to be offered, no matter in which order or format
the data is presented. This approach will also allow the table to be in
accord with the new wording in 2.2.2.4
I hope that this is clear. Your hard work is very much appreciated and
it is clearly understood that the document remains a "work in progress".
Please don't take my input as criticism - it is not! All I seek is
clarity of the wording for all.
With best wishes
Brian
Brian Mullan
Head, Maritime Safety Services
Inmarsat, 99 City Road, London EC1Y 1AX, UK
Tel: +44 (0)20 7728 1464
Fax: +44 (0)20 7728 1689
Mob: +44 (0)7711 495836
www.inmarsat.com
________________________________
From: Hayley, Craig [mailto:HayleyCR@DFO-MPO.GC.CA]
Sent: 31 May 2007 19:05
To: ccglrit-gcclrit(a)lists.ncf.ca
Cc: Brian Mullan
Subject: RE: [Ccglrit-gcclrit] June 12-14 meeting of the Ad hoc Working
Group onEngineering Aspects of LRIT, Hamburg Germany
Hi Brian,
Thanks for the e-mail. I hope more people will take the time to read the
documents and provide comments. I assume you are referring to the LRIT
communication document.
Please note the following text in the LRIT communications document:
1.1.1.1 The parameters added by the LRIT shipborne equipment
include the latitude, longitude, Time Stamp when the position was
generated, and the shipborne equipment identifier. The "Format" of these
parameters as outlined in table 2 indicates how the parameters shall be
formatted while the information is contained within the LRIT message and
does not specify the format of how the shipborne equipment transmits the
information.
Regarding your concerns with the format of the date/time... The only
difference that I can detect between the date/time you state and what is
in Table 2 of the LRIT communications document is the separators ("-"
versus ":") for the year, month, day, hour and minute. The separator
used to separate the year, month, etc in the date stated in table 2 is
not important and in no way linked to the format coming out of the
shipborne equipment. The format is with respect to SOAP messages
communicated along the various LRIT communication segments. CSPs for the
IDC shall have to "build" SOAP messages complying with table 2 in the
communications document using the format from the ship borne equipment.
The important thing with the time stamp is that seconds are not
transmitted.
Regarding your concerns with the format for latitude... We had a
discussion on your e-mail and the intention was to implement your
recommendation. I can't recall why the "seconds" component of the
latitude didn't change to decimal minutes with a precision of 2 decimal
places. The most likely reason is that I forgot to incorporate this
change in the document due to the numerous requests. My apologies on
this topic. I will make the change for latitude to decimal minutes
unless someone raises a compelling reason not to change. Any body from
the Communications group recall if there was a specific reason why we
didn't make the change (Jilian, Guy, etc.)???
I would like to high light to everyone that these documents are in
constant flux as a result of many requests from different inputs at the
Ad Hoc meeting. Thus, it is important to fully read the documents that
come out of each meeting to ensure that any particular topic of interest
is addressed in a satisfactory manner.
Thanks,
Craig Hayley
System Engineer
Canadian Coast Guard
709-772-7740
________________________________
From: ccglrit-gcclrit-bounces(a)lists.ncf.ca
[mailto:ccglrit-gcclrit-bounces@lists.ncf.ca] On Behalf Of Brian Mullan
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 12:35 PM
To: ccglrit-gcclrit(a)lists.ncf.ca
Subject: Re: [Ccglrit-gcclrit] June 12-14 meeting of the Ad hoc Working
Group onEngineering Aspects of LRIT, Hamburg Germany
Thanks, Tracy
In table 2 I note that the format of date/time is still shown as
YYYY-MM-DD-HH-MM. My earlier email (attached) made comment on this. Also
in Table 2, note appears to have been taken of my comments regarding
latitude/longitude position for Longitude only, but ignores Latitude.
We must not start requiring reformatting for transmitted data that is
already designed into existing shipboard equipment - PLEASE!
Many thanks
Brian
Brian Mullan
Head, Maritime Safety Services
Inmarsat, 99 City Road, London EC1Y 1AX, UK
Tel: +44 (0)20 7728 1464
Fax: +44 (0)20 7728 1689
Mob: +44 (0)7711 495836
www.inmarsat.com
________________________________
From: ccglrit-gcclrit-bounces(a)lists.ncf.ca
[mailto:ccglrit-gcclrit-bounces@lists.ncf.ca] On Behalf Of Peverett,
Tracy
Sent: 29 May 2007 22:27
To: ccglrit-gcclrit(a)lists.ncf.ca
Subject: [Ccglrit-gcclrit] June 12-14 meeting of the Ad hoc Working
Group onEngineering Aspects of LRIT, Hamburg Germany
Second of two e-mails
As promised, attached please find the updated LRIT Communications
specification.
Best regards
Tracy
Tracy Peverett
Senior Policy Analyst
Canadian Coast Guard
Tel: 1-613-990-4046
Fax: 1-613-998-3255
e-mail: peverettT(a)dfo-mpo.gc.ca
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the
system manager. In accordance with Inmarsat Information Security Policy
and Guidelines on Computer use, emails sent or received may be
monitored. Inmarsat plc, Registered No 4886072 and Inmarsat Global
Limited, Registered No. 3675885. Both Registered in England and Wales
with Registered Office at 99 City Road, London EC1Y 1AX.
_____________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by Verizon Business Internet
Managed Scanning Services - powered by MessageLabs. For further
information visit http://www.verizonbusiness.com/uk
_____________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by Verizon Business Internet
Managed Scanning Services - powered by MessageLabs. For further
information visit http://www.verizonbusiness.com/uk
_____________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by Verizon Business Internet
Managed Scanning Services - powered by MessageLabs. For further
information visit http://www.verizonbusiness.com/uk
18 years
LRIT Meeting...
by Angola Permanent Representation to the IMO
Dear Sir / Madam,
Could you please send to us details of accommodation for the forthcoming
LRIT meeting taking place in Hamburg - Germany? Thank you in advance.
Angola Permanent Representation to the IMO
18 years
ROMANIAN COAST STATION Delegacy
by Vlad Stanculescu
Dear sirs,
The ROMANIAN National Company for Naval Radio-communications RADIONAV SA,
that represents the Romanian Black-Sea Coast Station, will attent the LRIT
Meeting on 12-14 June 2007 at Hamburg,Germany, with the following 2
representatives :
Mr. Vlad Stanculescu - Technical Manager of The Romanian Coast Station
Mr. Ionita Profir - Representative of the Romanian Ministry of
Transportation
Please provide us with all the necesary informations that we must have
before our arrival in Hamburg, and if there is any need for fill out a form
with our complete personal details needed for the conference id and
registration.
Thank you very much.
Kindest regards,
Vlad Stănculescu
Technical Manager
E-mail : <mailto:vlad@tnet.ro> vlad(a)radionav.ro, vlad(a)tnet.ro
Web : <http://www.radionav.ro/> www.radionav.ro
Mobile : +40 748 489 305
Tel/Fax : +40 241 706 304
Address : Ecluzei Street Nr.3,Constanta-Agigea,ROMANIA
The National Company for Naval Radio-communications
N.C.N.R. RADIONAV S.A.
SIGLA
18 years
