ISO 16363:2025
(Main)Space data and information transfer systems — Audit and certification of trustworthy digital repositories
Space data and information transfer systems — Audit and certification of trustworthy digital repositories
This document defines a CCSDS Recommended Practice on which to base an audit and certification process for assessing the trustworthiness of digital repositories. The scope of application of this document is the entire range of digital repositories.
Systèmes de transfert des informations et données spatiales — Audit et certification des référentiels numériques de confiance
General Information
Relations
Standards Content (Sample)
International
Standard
ISO 16363
Second edition
Space data and information transfer
2025-03
systems — Audit and certification of
trustworthy digital repositories
Systèmes de transfert des informations et données spatiales —
Audit et certification des référentiels numériques de confiance
Reference number
© ISO 2025
All rights reserved. Unless otherwise specified, or required in the context of its implementation, no part of this publication may
be reproduced or utilized otherwise in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, or posting on
the internet or an intranet, without prior written permission. Permission can be requested from either ISO at the address below
or ISO’s member body in the country of the requester.
ISO copyright office
CP 401 • Ch. de Blandonnet 8
CH-1214 Vernier, Geneva
Phone: +41 22 749 01 11
Email: copyright@iso.org
Website: www.iso.org
Published in Switzerland
ii
Foreword
ISO (the International Organization for Standardization) is a worldwide federation of national standards
bodies (ISO member bodies). The work of preparing International Standards is normally carried out through
ISO technical committees. Each member body interested in a subject for which a technical committee has been
established has the right to be represented on that committee. International organizations, governmental and
non-governmental, in liaison with ISO, also take part in the work. ISO collaborates closely with the
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) on all matters of electrotechnical standardization.
The procedures used to develop this document and those intended for its further maintenance are described
in the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 1. In particular, the different approval criteria needed for the different types of
ISO document should be noted (see www.iso.org/directives).
ISO draws attention to the possibility that the implementation of this document may involve the use of (a)
patent(s). ISO takes no position concerning the evidence, validity or applicability of any claimed patent rights
in respect thereof. As of the date of publication of this document, ISO had not received notice of (a) patent(s)
which may be required to implement this document. However, implementers are cautioned that this may not
represent the latest information, which may be obtained from the patent database available at
www.iso.org/patents. ISO shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such patent rights.
Any trade name used in this document is information given for the convenience of users and does not
constitute an endorsement.
For an explanation of the voluntary nature of standards, the meaning of ISO specific terms and expressions
related to conformity assessment, as well as information about ISO’s adherence to the World Trade
Organization (WTO) principles in the Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT), see www.iso.org/iso/foreword.html.
This document was prepared by the Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS) (as CCSDS 652.0-
P-1.1, November 2021) and drafted in accordance with its editorial rules. It was assigned to Technical
Committee ISO/TC 20, Aircraft and space vehicles, Subcommittee SC 13, Space data and information transfer
systems and adopted under the “fast-track procedure”.
This second edition cancels and replaces the first edition (ISO 16363:2012), which has been technically
revised.
The main changes are as follows:
— updates to ensure consistency with updated ISO 14721, e.g. add mentions of "Preservation Objectives" in
section 4.1.1.4 and 4.1.1.5, and added new 4.3.5;
— clarifications added to "Discussions" in several sections;
— added section 3.3.3 for better consistency with ISO 14721;
— changed "written" to "documented" in many metrics;
— changed "metadata" to "information" in many metrics;
— clarify Risk Management in section 5.1.1.
Any feedback or questions on this document should be directed to the user’s national standards body. A
complete listing of these bodies can be found at www.iso.org/members.html.
iii
AUDIT AND CERTIFICATION OF TRUSTWORTHY DIGITAL REPOSITORIES
CONTENTS
Section Page
1 INTRODUCTION . 1-1
1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE . 1-1
1.2 APPLICABILITY . 1-1
1.3 RATIONALE . 1-1
1.4 STRUCTURE OF THIS DOCUMENT . 1-2
1.5 DEFINITIONS . 1-3
1.6 CONFORMANCE . 1-6
1.7 REFERENCES . 1-6
2 OVERVIEW OF AUDIT AND CERTIFICATION CRITERIA . 2-1
2.1 A TRUSTWORTHY DIGITAL REPOSITORY . 2-1
2.2 EVIDENCE . 2-1
2.3 RELEVANT STANDARDS, BEST PRACTICES, AND CONTROLS . 2-1
3 ORGANIZATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE . 3-1
3.1 GOVERNANCE AND ORGANIZATIONAL VIABILITY . 3-1
3.2 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND STAFFING . 3-4
3.3 PROCEDURAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND PRESERVATION
POLICY FRAMEWORK . 3-5
3.4 FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY . 3-12
3.5 CONTRACTS, LICENSES, AND LIABILITIES . 3-13
4 DIGITAL OBJECT MANAGEMENT . 4-1
4.1 INGEST: ACQUISITION OF CONTENT . 4-1
4.2 INGEST: CREATION OF THE AIP . 4-7
4.3 PRESERVATION PLANNING . 4-17
4.4 AIP PRESERVATION . 4-21
4.5 INFORMATION MANAGEMENT . 4-25
4.6 ACCESS MANAGEMENT . 4-26
5 INFRASTRUCTURE AND SECURITY RISK MANAGEMENT . 5-1
5.1 TECHNICAL INFRASTRUCTURE RISK MANAGEMENT . 5-1
5.2 SECURITY RISK MANAGEMENT . 5-13
ANNEX A SECURITY, SANA, AND PATENT CONSIDERATIONS
(INFORMATIVE) . A-1
ANNEX B INFORMATIVE REFERENCES (INFORMATIVE) . B-1
CCSDS 652.0-M-2 Page vi December 2024
AUDIT AND CERTIFICATION OF TRUSTWORTHY DIGITAL REPOSITORIES
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The main purpose of this document is to define a CCSDS Recommended Practice on which
to base an audit and certification process for assessing the trustworthiness of digital
repositories. The scope of application of this document is the entire range of digital
repositories.
1.2 APPLICABILITY
This document is meant primarily for those responsible for auditing digital repositories and
also for those who work in or are responsible for digital repositories seeking objective
measurement of the trustworthiness of their repository. Some institutions may also choose to
use these metrics during a design or redesign process for their digital repository.
1.3 RATIONALE
In 1996 the Task Force on Archiving of Digital Information (reference [B1]) declared, ‘a
critical component of digital archiving infrastructure is the existence of a sufficient number
of trusted organizations capable of storing, migrating, and providing access to digital
collections’. The task force saw that ‘trusted’ or trustworthy organizations could not simply
identify themselves. To the contrary, the task force declared, ‘a process of certification for
digital archives is needed to create an overall climate of trust about the prospects of
preserving digital information’.
Work in articulating responsible digital archiving infrastructure was furthered by the
development of the Open Archival Information System (OAIS) Reference Model
(reference [1]). Designed to create a consensus on ‘what is required for an archive to provide
permanent or indefinite long-term preservation of digital information’, the OAIS addressed
fundamental questions regarding the long-term preservation of digital materials that cut
across domain-specific implementations. The reference model (ISO 14721) provides a
common conceptual framework describing the environment, functional components, and
information objects within a system responsible for the long-term preservation of digital
materials. Long before it became an approved standard in 2002, many in the cultural heritage
community had adopted OAIS as a model to better understand what would be needed from
digital preservation systems.
Institutions began to declare themselves ‘OAIS-compliant’ to underscore the trustworthiness
of their digital repositories. However, there was no established understanding of ‘OAIS-
compliance’ beyond being able to apply OAIS terminology to describe their archive, despite
there being a compliance section in OAIS which specifies the need to support the model of
information and fulfilling the mandatory responsibilities.
CCSDS 652.0-M-2 Page 1-1 December 2024
AUDIT AND CERTIFICATION OF TRUSTWORTHY DIGITAL REPOSITORIES
Claims of trustworthiness are easy to make but are thus far difficult to justify or objectively
prove. Establishing more clear criteria detailing what a trustworthy repository is and is not
has become vital.
In 2002, Research Libraries Group (RLG) and Online Computer Library Center (OCLC)
jointly published Trusted Digital Repositories: Attributes and Responsibilities
(reference [B2]), which further articulated a framework of attributes and responsibilities for
trusted, reliable, sustainable digital repositories capable of handling the range of materials
held by large and small cultural heritage and research institutions. The framework was broad
enough to accommodate different situations, technical architectures, and institutional
responsibilities while providing a basis for the expectations of a trusted repository. The
document has proven to be useful for institutions grappling with the long-term preservation
of cultural heritage resources and has been used in combination with the OAIS as a digital
preservation planning tool. As a framework, this document concentrated on high-level
organizational and technical attributes and discussed potential models for digital repository
certification. It refrained from being prescriptive about the specific nature of rapidly
emerging digital repositories and archives and instead reiterated the call for certification of
digital repositories, recommending the development of certification program and articulation
of auditable criteria.
OAIS included a Roadmap for follow-on standards which included ‘standard(s) for
accreditation of archives’. It was agreed that RLG and National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA) would take this particular topic forward and the later published the
TRAC (reference [B3]) document which combined ideas from OAIS (reference [1]) and
Trusted Digital Repositories: Attributes and Responsibilities (TDR—reference [B2]).
The current document follows on from, extends and clarifies TRAC in order to produce an
ISO standard which can be used in an ISO audit and certification process.
1.4 STRUCTURE OF THIS DOCUMENT
This document is divided into informative and normative sections and annexes.
Sections 1-2 of this document are informative and give a high-level view of the rationale, the
conceptual environment, some of the important design issues, and an introduction to the
terminology and concepts.
– Section 1 gives purpose and scope, rationale, a view of the overall document
structure, and the acronym list, glossary, and reference list for this document.
– Section 2 provides an overview of audit and certification criteria, ideas about
evidence to support claims, and a discussion of related standards.
Metrics are empirically derived and consistent measures of effectiveness. When
evaluated together, metrics can be used to judge the overall suitability of a repository
to be trusted to provide a preservation environment that is consistent with the goals of
CCSDS 652.0-M-2 Page 1-2 December 2024
AUDIT AND CERTIFICATION OF TRUSTWORTHY DIGITAL REPOSITORIES
the OAIS. Separately, individual metrics or measures can be used to identify possible
weaknesses or pending declines in repository functionality.
– Sections 3 to 5 provide the normative metrics against which a digital repository may
be judged. These sections provide metrics grouped as follows:
• section 3 covers Organizational Infrastructure;
• section 4 covers Digital Object Management;
• section 5 covers Infrastructure and Security Risk Management.
Each section groups metrics into one or more subsections.
– Security considerations are discussed in annex A.
– Annex B provides Informative References.
1.5 DEFINITIONS
1.5.1 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AIP Archival Information Package
CCSDS Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems
DEDSL Data Entity Specification Language
DIP Dissemination Information Package
FITS Flexible Image Transport System
GIS Geographic Information System
ISO International Organization
...
Questions, Comments and Discussion
Ask us and Technical Secretary will try to provide an answer. You can facilitate discussion about the standard in here.