<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">
<div>
<div>Nestor,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Actually, it seems to me that both of those statements could be true. Sometimes the individuals in the BoF will have knowledge of resources that are available for the WG and sometimes they will not, but I see your point. If we always move forward as if
no resources have yet been identified for a new WG, then it will emphasize to the CMC that it is their job to prioritize work and find resources for that which needs to be done. At the moment, it seems that they often look to the CESG to find the resources
or hope that they will be found. Unfortunately, my feeling is that they will just respond by denying any requests for new work until such time that someone can “guarantee” to them that resources are available.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Rick</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>Richard J. Barton, Ph.D.</div>
<div>Wireless and Communication Systems Branch</div>
<div>NASA Johnson Space Center</div>
<div>2101 NASA Parkway</div>
<div>Mail Code EV811</div>
<div>Houston, TX 77058</div>
<div>281-483-1444 (office)</div>
<div>281-483-5830 (fax)</div>
<div>713-818-4076 (cell)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
<div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt">
<span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span><<a href="mailto:cesg-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org">cesg-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org</a>> on behalf of "<a href="mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int">Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int</a>" <<a href="mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int">Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>Monday, September 28, 2015 at 7:52 AM<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span>"Shames, Peter M (JPL-312B)[Jet Propulsion Laboratory]" <<a href="mailto:peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov">peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Cc: </span>CCSDS CESG -- <<a href="mailto:cesg@mailman.ccsds.org">cesg@mailman.ccsds.org</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span>Re: [CESG] Revised updates to CCSDS Org & Proc doc, A02.1-Y-4c1<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div><font size="2" face="sans-serif">Peter,</font> <br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> there is nothing as an SLS</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"> “marching army”: I am a pacifist as all SLSers :o) </font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">,</font><br>
<br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif">I confess that I must ask all CESGers to confirm which of the following two statements is true for a BOF:</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif">1) a BOF meets, finds that there is good work to be done but, despite (at least) two agencies support that work, there are no resources ==> The Area ask to CMC to appoint a WG and give the resources.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif">2) a BOF meets, finds that there is good work to be done, (at least) two agencies support that work and provide resources ==> The Area ask to CMC to appoint a WG and possibly give additional resources.</font><br>
<br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif">Whatever of the two statements above is true (despite we need to know which one is correct for operating correctly) my very last intention is to undervalue the resources issue and therefore my point is not mixing/hiding it in
a bullet speaking about charter and chairs. ===> include a dedicated bullet (this could be among AD Responsibilities - where the word resource is never present - unless the resource statements for CESG are considered sufficient).</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif">Moreover, because of this very high dignity and to "</font><font size="2" face="Calibri">to remind the CMC that one of their responsibilities is to support the work with resources</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">", some
text could be added to section "</font><font size="2">2.3.1.2 CMC Responsibilities
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">" e.g. under bullet d where it could be highlighted by some additional text to the CMC responsibility for new WGs.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif">Note that something already exists in item d of "</font><font size="2">2.3.1.3 CMC Functions
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">".</font> <br>
<br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif">Fine with me the other magenta changes.</font> <br>
<br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif">Ciao</font> <br>
<br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif">Gippo</font> <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<font size="1" color="#5f5f5f" face="sans-serif">From: </font><font size="1" face="sans-serif">"Shames, Peter M (312B)" <<a href="mailto:peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov">peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov</a>></font><br>
<font size="1" color="#5f5f5f" face="sans-serif">To: </font><font size="1" face="sans-serif">"<a href="mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int">Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int</a>" <<a href="mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int">Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int</a>>,
"CCSDS CESG --" <<a href="mailto:cesg@mailman.ccsds.org">cesg@mailman.ccsds.org</a>>,
</font><br>
<font size="1" color="#5f5f5f" face="sans-serif">Date: </font><font size="1" face="sans-serif">25/09/2015 20:31</font><br>
<font size="1" color="#5f5f5f" face="sans-serif">Subject: </font><font size="1" face="sans-serif">Re: [CESG] Revised updates to CCSDS Org & Proc doc, A02.1-Y-4c1</font><br>
<font size="1" color="#5f5f5f" face="sans-serif">Sent by: </font><font size="1" face="sans-serif"><a href="mailto:cesg-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org">cesg-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org</a></font><br>
<hr noshade="">
<br>
<br>
<br>
<font size="2" face="Calibri">Hi Gippo,</font> <br>
<br>
<font size="2" face="Calibri">Thanks for the feedback.</font> <br>
<br>
<font size="2" face="Calibri">In the discussion yesterday we explicitly added the text to have the AD ask the CMC for both WG chair candiates and for resources. I think it is completely appropriate to add that text into sec 2.3.2.4.3. Unlike SLS, which tends
to have a “marching army” from which you can, and do, just use existing resources to create new BoFs, some other areas do not have these existing resources. These other “resource poor” areas have to go hat in hand to the agencies to seek resources. You
could say that it is cruel to remind them of this, but it is the case. Anything we can do to remind the CMC that one of their responsibilities is to support the work with resources is probably an opportunity to be taken.</font><br>
<br>
<font size="2" face="Calibri">Other comments are placed in-line, below. The resulting revisions to text follows here, with the latest changes based on your inputs marked in
</font><font size="2" color="#ff42f9" face="Calibri">magenta.</font> <br>
<br>
<font size="2" face="Calibri">Regards, Peter</font> <br>
<br>
<br>
<font size="2" face="Calibri">==========================================================================</font><font size="3"></font>
<p><font size="3" face="Calibri">2.3.1.2 CMC Responsibilities (pg 2-5)</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"></font><font size="3" face="Calibri"><br>
g) providing the overall administration of the organization, including </font><font size="3" color="#008000" face="Calibri">nominating and appointing CCSDS leadership (CESG & AD), and
</font><font size="3" face="Calibri">the very important function of the Secretariat;
</font></p>
<p><font size="3" face="Calibri"> 2.3.2.3 CESG Responsibilities (pg 2-11)</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"></font><font size="3" face="Calibri"><br>
n) approving WG Chairs and Deputy Chairs;</font> </p>
<p><font size="3" color="red" face="Calibri">NOTE – For fairness and to help achieve agency balance the AD proposing the Chair is to ask the CMC and the member agencies for nominees for new WG Chair or Deputy prior to requesting the CESG ballot for the WG.</font></p>
<p><font size="3" face="Calibri">NOTE – BOF and SIG chairs are not subject to CESG approval.
</font></p>
<p><font size="3" face="Calibri">2.3.2.4.3 Area Director Responsibilities</font> </p>
<p><font size="3" face="Calibri">c) making recommendations to the CESG concerning approval for the chartering and formation of WGs
</font><font size="3" color="#ff00ff" face="Calibri">and nominating WG chairs</font><font size="3" face="Calibri">;
</font><font size="3" color="red" face="Calibri">requesting nominations of qualified WG chair candidates and contributors from the CMC prior to polling the CESG for WG approval; replacing WG chairs who are no longer able to serve;</font></p>
<p><font size="3" face="Calibri">2.3.3.4 Working Group Chairs (pg 2-16)</font> </p>
<p><font size="3" face="Calibri">Working Group chairs are nominated by an Area Director and approved by the CESG. Candidates for selection as WG chairs must be recognized as a leading technical expert in the field covered by that WG. Candidates may come from
any organization (including industry) and do not have to be employees of space agencies.
</font><font size="3" color="red" face="Calibri">For fairness and to help achieve agency balance the AD is required to ask the CMC for nominees for new WG Chair or Deputy prior to requesting the CESG ballot for the WG. If a Working Group chair can no longer
serve the AD must follow the same process in identifying a replacement. </font><font size="3" color="#008000" face="Calibri">As a general principle, to avoid conflicts of scheduling or interest, a single person may only be the Chair or Deputy of one WG at
a time.</font> </p>
<p><font size="3" face="Calibri">2.3.4 BIRDS-OF-A-FEATHER GROUPS (pg 2-18, last paragraph)</font></p>
<p><font size="3" face="Calibri">…</font> </p>
<p><font size="3" face="Calibri">At such time as a BOF feels that it has enough agreement to propose formation of a WG, it must schedule a meeting with an AD to present its case.
</font><font size="3" color="#ff00ff" face="Calibri">The BoF should have prepared the following materials, using the on-line chartering system (see Sec 5.5):</font></p>
<ul>
<li><font size="2" color="#ff00ff" face="Calibri">a draft charter (see Sec 5.5.1)</font></li><li><font size="2" color="#ff00ff" face="Calibri">a candidate chair (if identified by the BOF),
</font></li><li><font size="2" color="#ff00ff" face="Calibri">at least one project definition (see Sec 5.5.2),
</font></li><li><font size="3" color="#ff00ff">a resource profile for each project identifying expected efforts and contributing agencies, and</font></li><li><font size="3" color="#ff00ff">a CCSDS concept paper (see 6.1.3) outlining its technical scope.
</font></li></ul>
<font size="3" face="Calibri">The AD makes the initial determination as to whether to advocate the work further, to recommend more BOF work on the charter</font><font size="3" color="#ff00ff" face="Calibri">, concept paper, projects,
</font><font size="3" face="Calibri">and resource profile, or to reject the proposal. If the AD recommends acceptance of the proposal, the AD must then
</font><font size="3" color="red" face="Calibri">ask the CMC for nominees for new WG Chair or Deputy and for adequate resources to support the work. Once a proposed WG chair (and possibly deputy Chair) have been identified the AD must</font><font size="3" face="Calibri">
forward the draft charter, project definition, and resource profile, accompanied by a CCSDS concept paper (see 6.1.3) outlining its technical scope,
</font><font size="3" color="red" face="Calibri"><strike>is forwarded</strike></font><font size="3" face="Calibri"> to the CESG for a decision. If the AD rejects the proposal, the BOF can appeal to the CESG chairman for a wider hearing, or it can simply dissolve.
BOFs initiated from inside the CCSDS organization have a lifetime of no more than one year.</font>
<p><font size="3"><b>Added …</b></font> </p>
<p><font size="3"><b>6.1.3.3.4 </b>If a BOF has to modify and resubmit </font><font size="3" color="#ff42f9">the</font><font size="3"> charter
</font><font size="3" color="#ff42f9">and supporting materials</font><font size="3"> to meet any changes as a result of CESG review, the concept paper shall be updated as necessary and resubmitted as well.</font></p>
<p><font size="3"> </font> </p>
<p><font size="2" face="Calibri"><b>From: </b><</font><a href="mailto:cesg-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org"><font size="2" color="blue" face="Calibri"><u>cesg-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org</u></font></a><font size="2" face="Calibri">> on behalf of Gian Paolo Calzolari
<</font><a href="mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int"><font size="2" color="blue" face="Calibri"><u>Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int</u></font></a><font size="2" face="Calibri">><b><br>
Date: </b>Friday, September 25, 2015 at 7:57 AM<b><br>
To: </b>CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <</font><a href="mailto:cesg@mailman.ccsds.org"><font size="2" color="blue" face="Calibri"><u>cesg@mailman.ccsds.org</u></font></a><font size="2" face="Calibri">><b><br>
Subject: </b>Re: [CESG] Revised updates to CCSDS Org & Proc doc, A02.1-Y-4c1</font><br>
<br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif">All,</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"><br>
here is a couple of comments.</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"> <br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif"><br>
I would remove "</font><font size="3" color="red" face="Calibri">and contributors</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">" from the proposed change to
</font><font size="3" face="Calibri">2.3.2.4.3 Area Director Responsibilities - item c)
<br>
The request of contributions is made in the BOF (otherwise there would be no recommendation to go for WG) and nthing prevent an Agency from adding resources.
</font><br>
<br>
<font size="3">Recommend leaving this in, as discussed.</font> <br>
<br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"><br>
Strange enough the list of "</font><font size="3" face="Calibri">Area Director Responsibilities</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">" seems to miss what is stated under
</font><font size="3" face="Calibri">2.3.3.4</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif"> first line.<br>
I suggest completing "</font><font size="3" face="Calibri">2.3.2.4.3 Area Director Responsibilities - item c)</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">" to state somehow that - after candidates are proposed - the AD nominates the Chair(s) asking CESG approval.</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"></font><br>
<br>
<font size="3">Added text “nominating WG chairs”</font> <br>
<br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"><br>
The proposed change to section 2.3.4 does not reflect that we agreed that a BOF is expected to ask agency representatives for initial chair candidates to be reported to the AD within the concept paper (or within the resource profile?) together with draft charter,
draft project(s), etc.</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font><br>
<br>
<font size="3">The added text (</font><font size="3" color="red" face="Calibri">ask the CMC for nominees for new WG Chair or Deputy and for adequate resources to support the work. Once a proposed WG chair (and possibly deputy Chair) have been identified)
</font><font size="3">does just what we discussed. We did not discuss any changes that involved sending the concept paper, the resource profile, charter, etc to the CMC prior to CESG poll. I do think that the AD request to the CMC for resources probably
needs to include at least a brief project descriptions, but thought that was so obvious as to not need stating.</font><br>
<br>
<font size="3">Do you think we need to be more formal about how we describe the process for making this request to the CMC?</font><br>
<br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"><br>
Moreover it looks as the AD can only "</font><font size="3" face="Calibri">recommend more BOF work on the charter and resource profile</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">" and not on other items of the list following a few lines below.<br>
A possible rewording could something like this (better wording welcome :o):</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"><br>
</font><font size="2" color="blue" face="sans-serif"><br>
At such time as a BOF feels that it has enough agreement to propose formation of a WG, it must schedule a meeting with an AD to present its case providing a BOF Package including:<br>
- a draft charter including candidate chairs (if identified by the BOF), <br>
- at least one project definition (see 5.5.1.1.1), <br>
- a resource profile for each project identifying expected efforts and contributing agencies, and
<br>
- a CCSDS concept paper (see 6.1.3) outlining its technical scope. <br>
The AD makes the initial determination as to whether to advocate the work further, to recommend more BOF work on the BOF Package, or to reject the proposal. If the AD recommends acceptance of the proposal, the AD must then ask the CMC for nominees for new WG
Chair or Deputy and for adequate resources to support the work. Once a proposed WG chair (and possibly deputy Chair) have been identified the AD must forward the BOF Package to the CESG for a decision. If the AD rejects the proposal, the BOF can appeal to
the CESG chairman for a wider hearing, or it can simply dissolve. BOFs initiated from inside the CCSDS organization have a lifetime of no more than one year.</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"><br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif"><br>
I invented the term BOF Package to make clear what I mean, but better wording is surely possible and welcome.</font><br>
<br>
<font size="3">Agreed. See proposed changes, above.</font> <br>
<br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"><br>
BTW for this clause</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font><font size="4" face="Calibri"><br>
6.1.3.3.4 If a BOF has to modify and resubmit its charter to meet any changes as a result of CESG review, the concept paper shall be updated as necessary and resubmitted as well.
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif"><br>
I think that "its charter" is wrong as it is the charter of the proposed WG and not the BOF charter.</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"><br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif"><br>
I wish you all a nice week end.</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"> <br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif"><br>
Gippo</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"> <br>
<br>
<br>
</font><font size="1" color="#5f5f5f" face="sans-serif"><br>
From: </font><font size="1" face="sans-serif">"Shames, Peter M (312B)" <</font><a href="mailto:peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov"><font size="1" color="blue" face="sans-serif"><u>peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov</u></font></a><font size="1" face="sans-serif">></font><font size="1" color="#5f5f5f" face="sans-serif"><br>
To: </font><font size="1" face="sans-serif">"CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec" <</font><a href="mailto:cesg@mailman.ccsds.org"><font size="1" color="blue" face="sans-serif"><u>cesg@mailman.ccsds.org</u></font></a><font size="1" face="sans-serif">>,
</font><font size="1" color="#5f5f5f" face="sans-serif"><br>
Date: </font><font size="1" face="sans-serif">25/09/2015 01:45</font><font size="1" color="#5f5f5f" face="sans-serif"><br>
Subject: </font><font size="1" face="sans-serif">[CESG] Revised updates to CCSDS Org & Proc doc, A02.1-Y-4c1</font><font size="1" color="#5f5f5f" face="sans-serif"><br>
Sent by: </font><a href="mailto:cesg-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org"><font size="1" color="blue" face="sans-serif"><u>cesg-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org</u></font></a><font size="2" face="Calibri"><br>
</font></p>
<hr noshade="">
<font size="2" face="Calibri"><br>
<br>
</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"><br>
Dear CESG colleagues,</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"> <br>
</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"><br>
During today’s CESG telecon we discussed one set of proposed changes to the CCSDS Organization and Procedures Yellow Book (CCSDS A02.1-Y-4) addressing soliciting WG chair nominations from agencies. We did not address at all the conflict of scheduling or interest
issues that have also been raised in recent discussions.</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"><br>
</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"><br>
Please see the following proposed changes to the document. This set covers only the specific topic we discussed today. Proposed changes from the existing text are indicated in
</font><font size="2" color="red" face="Calibri"><b>red</b></font><font size="2" face="Calibri">. The proposed change to deal with other topics are in
</font><font size="2" color="#008000" face="Calibri"><b>green</b></font><font size="2" face="Calibri">.</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"><br>
</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"><br>
Best regards, Peter</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"> <br>
<br>
<br>
</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"><br>
==========================================================================</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"></font>
<p><font size="3" face="Calibri">2.3.1.2 CMC Responsibilities (pg 2-5)</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"></font><font size="3" face="Calibri"><br>
g) providing the overall administration of the organization, including </font><font size="3" color="#008000" face="Calibri">nominating and appointing CCSDS leadership (CESG & AD), and
</font><font size="3" face="Calibri">the very important function of the Secretariat;
</font></p>
<p><font size="3" face="Calibri"> 2.3.2.3 CESG Responsibilities (pg 2-11)</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"></font><font size="3" face="Calibri"><br>
n) approving WG Chairs and Deputy Chairs;</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font>
</p>
<p><font size="3" color="red" face="Calibri">NOTE – For fairness and to help achieve agency balance the AD proposing the Chair is to ask the CMC and the member agencies for nominees for new WG Chair or Deputy prior to requesting the CESG ballot for the WG.</font></p>
<p><font size="3" face="Calibri">NOTE – BOF and SIG chairs are not subject to CESG approval.
</font></p>
<p><font size="3" face="Calibri">2.3.2.4.3 Area Director Responsibilities</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"></font></p>
<p><font size="3" face="Calibri">c) making recommendations to the CESG concerning approval for the chartering and formation of WGs; </font><font size="3" color="red" face="Calibri">requesting nominations of qualified WG chair candidates and contributors from
the CMC prior to polling the CESG for WG approval; replacing WG chairs who are no longer able to serve;</font></p>
<p><font size="3" face="Calibri">2.3.3.4 Working Group Chairs (pg 2-16)</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"></font></p>
<p><font size="3" face="Calibri">Working Group chairs are nominated by an Area Director and approved by the CESG. Candidates for selection as WG chairs must be recognized as a leading technical expert in the field covered by that WG. Candidates may come from
any organization (including industry) and do not have to be employees of space agencies.
</font><font size="3" color="red" face="Calibri">For fairness and to help achieve agency balance the AD is required to ask the CMC for nominees for new WG Chair or Deputy prior to requesting the CESG ballot for the WG. If a Working Group chair can no longer
serve the AD must follow the same process in identifying a replacement. </font><font size="3" color="#008000" face="Calibri">As a general principle, to avoid conflicts of scheduling or interest, a single person may only be the Chair or Deputy of one WG at
a time.</font> </p>
<p><font size="3" face="Calibri">2.3.4 BIRDS-OF-A-FEATHER GROUPS (pg 2-18, last paragraph)</font></p>
<p><font size="3" face="Calibri">…</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font></p>
<p><font size="3" face="Calibri">At such time as a BOF feels that it has enough agreement to propose formation of a WG, it must schedule a meeting with an AD to present its case. The AD makes the initial determination as to whether to advocate the work further,
to recommend more BOF work on the charter and resource profile, or to reject the proposal. If the AD recommends acceptance of the proposal, the AD must then
</font><font size="3" color="red" face="Calibri">ask the CMC for nominees for new WG Chair or Deputy and for adequate resources to support the work. Once a proposed WG chair (and possibly deputy Chair) have been identified the AD must forward</font><font size="3" face="Calibri">
the draft charter, project definition, and resource profile, accompanied by a CCSDS concept paper (see 6.1.3) outlining its technical scope,
</font><font size="3" color="red" face="Calibri"><strike>is forwarded</strike></font><font size="3" face="Calibri"> to the CESG for a decision. If the AD rejects the proposal, the BOF can appeal to the CESG chairman for a wider hearing, or it can simply dissolve.
BOFs initiated from inside the CCSDS organization have a lifetime of no more than one year.</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"></font></p>
<p><font size="3" face="Calibri"> </font><font size="2" face="Calibri">_______________________________________________<br>
CESG mailing list</font><font size="2" color="blue" face="Calibri"><u><br>
</u></font><a href="mailto:CESG@mailman.ccsds.org"><font size="2" color="blue" face="Calibri"><u>CESG@mailman.ccsds.org</u></font></a><font size="2" color="blue" face="Calibri"><u><br>
</u></font><a href="http://mailman.ccsds.org/mailman/listinfo/cesg"><font size="2" color="blue" face="Calibri"><u>http://mailman.ccsds.org/mailman/listinfo/cesg</u></font></a></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Calibri">This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee or addressees only.<br>
The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in whole or in part) of its<br>
content is not permitted.<br>
If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system.<br>
Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the sender.<br>
<br>
Please consider the environment before printing this email.<br>
</font><tt><font size="2">_______________________________________________<br>
CESG mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CESG@mailman.ccsds.org">CESG@mailman.ccsds.org</a><br>
</font></tt><a href="http://mailman.ccsds.org/mailman/listinfo/cesg"><tt><font size="2">http://mailman.ccsds.org/mailman/listinfo/cesg</font></tt></a><tt><font size="2"><br>
</font></tt></p>
<p></p>
<pre>This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee or addressees only.
The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in whole or in part) of its
content is not permitted.
If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system.
Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the sender.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
</pre>
</div>
</div>
</span>
</body>
</html>