Distributed Debrief Control Protocol

1
Distributed Debrief Control Protocol Study Group
Organizational Meeting
2
Agenda

• Introduction
• News
• Surveys
• Report Writing
• Summary

3
Officers

• Steve Monson, Chair
• Steve Padilla, Vice Chair
• Randy Pitz, Secretary

4
Emergent Need

• V. Travers, W. Ferguson, T. Langevin (2006). A
  Federating Protocol for Distributed After Action
  Review. Proceedings of 2006 Interservice/Industry
  Training, Simulation, and Education Conference.
• K. Barrera, W. Bennett, B. Blueggel, M. Nash
  (2007) Data, Functionality, and Collaboration
  Identifying and Evaluating Briefing and
  After-Action-Review Capabilities, 07S-SIW-095,
  Simulation Interoperability Workshop, March 2007
• R. Ford, J Shockley, C Kobryn (2007). A Proposed
  Distributed After Action Review (DAAR) Standard
  Based on the Joint Training Experimentation
  Program (JTEP) DAAR. Simulation Interoperability
  Workshop, September 2007.
• R. Pitz, C Armstrong (2007). Advanced Distributed
  Debrief for Joint and Coalition Training.
  Proceedings of 2007 Interservice/Industry
  Training, Simulation, and Education Conference.

5
Study Group Goal

• The goal of the Distributed Debrief Control
  Protocol Study Group is to evaluate industry and
  government interest in developing a distributed
  debrief control protocol standard.
• Final Report for Fall 2008 SIW

6
Tasks

• Review current activities within government and
  industry to identify potential stakeholders for
  an interoperability standard to support
  distributed debrief/after-action review.
• Survey the benefactors (buyers of simulators),
  the integrators (builders of simulators/integrator
  s of debrief systems), and the implementers
  (builders of debrief systems) to establish the
  need (or not) for a distributed debrief protocol
  standard.
• Review and evaluate on-going activities to
  identify requirements and potential solutions for
  a distributed debrief protocol standard.
• Evaluate methods for establishing compliance to a
  potential distributed debrief protocol standard.
• Write a report that captures the results of the
  study group activities.

7
Study Group Product

• The product of the study group will be a report
  that addresses
• The results of a survey of interests
• A top level technical review of the current
  distributed debriefing protocols techniques
  including relevant government and industry
  requirements and approaches.
• Enforcing interface compliance
• Next step recommendation(s) - (may include a
  Product Nomination)

8
Product Nomination

• Product Nomination title
• Name of proponent(s) and contact information
• Type of product that will be produced, or product
  to be modified
• Identification of the community to which the
  product applies
• Problem(s) and/or issue(s) that the proposed
  product addresses
• Indication of the maturity of proposed productto
  include alternatives discussed, prototypes,
  impacts of product, impact of lack of product
• Planned compliance testing for items built using
  the product (only applies to Standards Products)
• Schedule of product development milestones
  including reviews, reports, and balloting
• Candidate volunteers for the effort
• Suggested periodic review cycle once the product
  is approved.

9
News

• USAF CAF DMO Standards Development Working Group
  review of DDCP
• Plan to standardize DDCP by April 2009
• Other?

10
Surveys

• Thank you for returning a survey!
• 9 surveys returned
• Top results
• VCR-like controls
• 3-D Stealth synchronization
• Transfer of debrief control
• Annotation tools
• Display of tactical areas
• Link to summary data

11
Report Writing

• When?
• Who?
• Structure / Outline

12
Officer Re-election

• Randy Pitz, Chair
• Steve Padilla, Vice Chair
• John Jinkerson, Secretary
• Effective 18 September, 2008

13
Summary

• Writing commitments
• Next actions
• Telecons
• I/ITSEC 2008
• SIW Spring 2009
• Officers / Volunteers

14
Backup
15
Debrief Control Concepts

• Time?
• View Control?
• Protocol Independent (DIS,HLA,TENA)?
• Area/Point Highlight?