<font size=2 face="Arial">Dear Peter,</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">OK, then we move on following the below approach.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">As for the YB, I recommend you give a second
read. In fact in section 6.2.5.2 it is stated:</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 color=blue face="Arial">a) if technical issues are identified
in the course of a review, those issues must be</font>
<br><font size=2 color=blue face="Arial">resolved and the review must be
repeated before approval can be sought for a change</font>
<br><font size=2 color=blue face="Arial">of document status;</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">There is no concept of "substantive
changes … to a document". What I read is: if there are technical
issues (and there is a flag in the CCSDS form to identify "Technical
Facts"), the review must be repeated. Period.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">The "substantive changes"
come only in the clause</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 color=blue face="Arial">c) if substantive changes are
made to a document that has completed review without</font>
<br><font size=2 color=blue face="Arial">technical comment, the Secretariat
shall conduct a final review in which Agencies</font>
<br><font size=2 color=blue face="Arial">can approve or reject the document
but may not suggest additional changes;</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">In the above (which, by the way, I do not
fully understand), technical comments are explicitly excluded. I might
have completely misunderstood the text, but this could be already an indication
that it is not that clear.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">Again, if everyone is reasonable I do not
see a problem to handle imprecise and confusing statements in the YB, but
this is not always the case.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">Regards,</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">__Mario</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)" <peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov></font>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">To:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">"Mario.Merri@esa.int"
<Mario.Merri@esa.int></font>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Cc:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">"cesg@mailman.ccsds.org"
<cesg@mailman.ccsds.org>, Dan Smith <danford.s.smith@nasa.gov>,
"Barkley, Erik J (3970)" <erik.j.barkley@jpl.nasa.gov>,
Nestor Peccia <Nestor.Peccia@esa.int>, "Sam Cooper" <sam@brightascension.com>,
"Secretariat@mailman.ccsds.org" <Secretariat@mailman.ccsds.org></font>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Date:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">01/03/2017 20:19</font>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Subject:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Re: CESG review
of CCSDS MO M&C Services book</font>
<br>
<hr noshade>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">Dear Mario,</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">Thank you for being reasonable and recognizing
that the magnitude of the changes made to the document do, in fact, require
another Agency Review. The steps you identified seem reasonable and
I believe that they are in line with our agreed processes.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">I cannot speak for the CCSDS Chief Tech
Editor, he will utilize whatever level of review he judges is required
to get the document into final form. That is his responsibility.
The intent, of course, is to have the document in a form where if
it does pass Agency Review without any substantive changes it can be offered
for approved by the CESG and CMC, and then published, according to the
established procedures.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">I will point out that the operative words
re what triggers another review are "substantive changes … to a document".
I grant you that these words (most words, in fact) are subject to
interpretation. I believe that these words were used because they
are commonly understood. It would be possible, but unlikely, for
159 RIDs to all result in minor editorial changes were not substantive
(except in number) and would not trigger another review. As you have
agreed, this was not the case here. </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">I will agree that CCSDS has not precisely
defined the meaning of "substantive", some organizations do.
Good dictionary definitions, from Merriam Webster and others are
these:</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">"having substance : involving
matters of major or </font><a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/practical#h1"><font size=2 color=blue face="Calibri"><u>practical</u></font></a><font size=2 face="Calibri">
importance to all concerned"</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">"considerable in amount or numbers"</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">or, from Vocabulary.com</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri"><b>"</b>having a firm basis in reality
and being therefore important, meaningful, or considerable"</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">or, from Dictionary.com</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">"possessing substance; having practical
importance, value, or effect"</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">I think any of these accurately convey
the intent. I do not think that we need to make substantive changes
to our procedures in order to address this. The procedures and their
intent have been understood and adhered to for years by most of the Areas
and WG and adding more rules is likely only to confuse. That said,
perhaps adding a definition like one of these would help clarify?</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">Best regards, Peter</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size=3 face="Calibri"><b>From: </b>Mario Merri <Mario.Merri@esa.int><b><br>
Date: </b>Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 10:02 AM<b><br>
To: </b>Peter Shames <peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov><b><br>
Cc: </b>CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg@mailman.ccsds.org>,
Dan Smith <danford.s.smith@nasa.gov>, Erik Barkley <erik.j.barkley@jpl.nasa.gov>,
Nestor Peccia <Nestor.Peccia@esa.int>, Sam Cooper <sam@brightascension.com>,
CCSDS Secretariat <Secretariat@mailman.ccsds.org><b><br>
Subject: </b>Re: CESG review of CCSDS MO M&C Services book</font>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">Dear Peter,</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
<br>
</font><font size=2 face="Arial"><br>
sorry for the late answer, but I have been one week on holiday.</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
<br>
</font><font size=2 face="Arial"><br>
Please note that the document is largely auto-generated and MS Word has
trouble with matching text when its in tables, and we have a lot of tables.
Hence a pure MS-Word change track checking is misleading. Also, the CCSDS
guidelines are quite vague as they call for a new AR "if technical
issues are identified in the course of a review ..." without qualifying
the type of technical issues. Indeed, the CCSDS MO M&C Services book
R3 AR had 159 RIDs of which 129 resulted in some change to the document.
Should we check if other documents under review had "technical issues"
and call for a re-review? For instance, did the CSS Monitoring data BB
had no technical issue identified out of the RIDs raised? I have checked
and it is certainly not the case.</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
<br>
</font><font size=2 face="Arial"><br>
What I want to say is that if there are rules, they should be clear and
applied fairly to everyone. I suggest that the CESG looks into these rules
in view of making them clearer.</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
<br>
</font><font size=2 face="Arial"><br>
Having said that, I propose to move forward and go for the 4th Agency Review.
The document to be reviewed will be the final version submitted for publication
after the 3rd AR amended with the changes coming from the CESG review by
you and Erik. You and Erik will be provided with a version with change
bars so that you can see how your comments have been implemented. Considering
that this would be the 4th AR, I have discussed the matter with the CESG
chair and we have agreed to proceed with an expedite 4th AR. This implies:</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Symbol">· </font><font size=2 face="Arial">No
need for CESG/CMC poll for AR (allowed by the YB)</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Symbol">· </font><font size=2 face="Arial">No/minimal
re-checking of the draft document by Tom before putting it out for review
(being the 4th review, the document should be already in the proper CCSDS
format). This implies that this document will be put on top of Tom's queue.</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Symbol">· </font><font size=2 face="Arial">1
month review time (allowed by the YB). Please note that the review community
of this document is largely within the SM&C WG and therefore they are
fully aware and in agreement of the changes implemented.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial"><br>
I trust the CESG ADs will use this additional opportunity to raise any
outstanding issue so that we can have a smooth CESG poll after the 4th
AR.</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> <br>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Regards,</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> <br>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
__Mario</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> <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)" <peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov></font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif"><br>
To: </font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">"Mario.Merri@esa.int"
<Mario.Merri@esa.int></font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif"><br>
Cc: </font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">"Dan
Smith" <danford.s.smith@nasa.gov>, "Barkley, Erik J (3970)"
<erik.j.barkley@jpl.nasa.gov>, "Nestor Peccia" <Nestor.Peccia@esa.int>,
"Sam Cooper" <sam@brightascension.com>, "Secretariat@mailman.ccsds.org"
<Secretariat@mailman.ccsds.org>, "cesg@mailman.ccsds.org"
<cesg@mailman.ccsds.org></font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif"><br>
Date: </font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">16/02/2017
19:17</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif"><br>
Subject: </font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Re:
CESG review of CCSDS MO M&C Services book</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font>
<div align=center>
<hr noshade></div>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><br>
<br>
</font><font size=2 face="Calibri"><br>
Mario,</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 face="Calibri"><br>
</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 face="Calibri"><br>
For some reason you persist in trying to convolve the role that the Area
Directors and the whole CESG is supposed to play in ensuring the quality
of CCSDS documents with that of an Agency Review participant. I have
quoted this section of the CCSDS Organization and Processes, A02.1-Y-4,
before, but you seem to keep ignoring it.</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font><font size=2 face="Calibri"><br>
</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 color=#0082bf face="Calibri"><br>
2.3.2.4.3 An Area Director is responsible for the work done in his or her
WGs, BOFs, and SIGs and is <b><i>specifically responsible for the following</i></b>:</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font><font size=2 color=#0082bf face="Calibri"><br>
d) <b><i>ensuring that CCSDS documents</i></b> are properly categorized
and that they <b><i>embody the content and quality</i></b> expected of
documents of their type</font><font size=2 face="Calibri">; </font><font size=2 face="MS Mincho">
</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font><font size=2 face="Calibri"><br>
</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 face="Calibri"><br>
There is no part of the CCSDS Processes that requires an AD to only submit
inputs as a part of an agency review. That is something you have
made up. On the contrary, the requirement, as clearly stated, is
for ADs, and the CESG as a whole, for "</font><font size=2 color=#0082bf face="Calibri">identifying
“red flag” items where technical work in a proposed CCSDS document is
not of the required quality or nature</font><font size=2 face="Calibri">".
I take this responsibility seriously and try my hardest to carry
out the role that has been assigned. Given that situation, and the
effort that is involved, I do not make the choice to also participate in
Agency Reviews and to read through every document twice, or three times,
I just do not have the time.</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font><font size=2 face="Calibri"><br>
</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 face="Calibri"><br>
You should be aware that the intended flow of Red Book processing is that
by the time they get to Agency Review they are mature documents. It
should be the case that following an Agency Review that the only minor
changes to the document are made and that the document is then easily prepared
for final CESG and CMC review and approval. If a document goes through
major revisions after an Agency Review it is supposed to be sent out for
another Agency Review.</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 face="Calibri"><br>
</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 color=#0082bf face="Calibri"><b><br>
6.2.5 Formal Agency Review</b></font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font><font size=2 color=#0082bf face="Calibri"><br>
a) if technical issues are identified in the course
of a review, those issues must be resolved and the review must be repeated
before approval can be sought for a change of document status; </font><font size=2 color=#0082bf face="MS Mincho">
</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font><font size=2 color=#0082bf face="Calibri"><br>
c) if substantive changes are made to a document that has completed
review without technical comment, the Secretariat shall conduct a final
review in which Agencies can approve or reject the document but may not
suggest additional changes; </font><font size=2 color=#0082bf face="MS Mincho">
</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font><font size=2 face="Calibri"><br>
I must admit to being somewhat puzzled as to why there were so many issues
identified in this document that was supposed to have been reviewed by
the usual Agency Review process. I had the feeling that there was
a lot of new material and so I asked the Tech Editor to confirm that the
document sent for Agency Review Red-3 was, in fact, a minor revision to
the one sent to the CESG. That comparison is attached. I think
that if you take the time to review this comparison that you will find
that there were, in fact, <b><i>many</i></b> substantive changes made to
the document between what was sent to Agency Review Red-3 and what was
later sent to the CESG for final review.</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font><font size=2 face="Calibri"><br>
</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 face="Calibri"><br>
Based on this I can only conclude that you, as AD, and the SM&C WG,
did not follow the CCSDS Procedures and that this document, because of
these substantive changes, should have been sent out for another Agency
Review. I recommend that you and the WG review the inputs Erik and
I provided and apply as many of them as seem acceptable before sending
the document out for the next Agency Review.</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font><font size=2 face="Calibri"><br>
</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 face="Calibri"><br>
The "Show Stopper" PID that you requested is attached.</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font><font size=2 face="Calibri"><br>
</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 face="Calibri"><br>
Regards, Peter Shames</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 face="Calibri"><br>
</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 face="Calibri"><br>
</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><br>
________________________________________________________<br>
<br>
Peter Shames<br>
CCSDS System Engineering Area Director<br>
<br>
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, MS 301-490<br>
California Institute of Technology<br>
Pasadena, CA 91109 USA <br>
<br>
Telephone: +1 818 354-5740, Fax: +1 818 393-6871<br>
<br>
Internet: </font><a href=Peter.M.Shames@jpl.nasa.gov><font size=2 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><u>Peter.M.Shames@jpl.nasa.gov</u></font></a><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><br>
________________________________________________________<br>
<br>
We must recognize the strong and undeniable influence that our language
exerts on our ways of thinking and, in fact, delimits the abstract space
in which we can formulate - give form to - our thoughts.<br>
<br>
Niklaus Wirth</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><br>
</font><font size=2 face="Calibri"><br>
</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 face="Calibri"><br>
</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 face="Calibri"><br>
</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=3 face="Calibri"><b><br>
From: </b>Mario Merri <Mario.Merri@esa.int><b><br>
Date: </b>Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 1:04 AM<b><br>
To: </b>Peter Shames <peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov><b><br>
Cc: </b>Dan Smith <danford.s.smith@nasa.gov>, Erik Barkley <erik.j.barkley@jpl.nasa.gov>,
Nestor Peccia <Nestor.Peccia@esa.int>, Sam Cooper <sam@brightascension.com>,
CCSDS Secretariat <Secretariat@mailman.ccsds.org>, CCSDS Engineering
Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg@mailman.ccsds.org><b><br>
Subject: </b>Re: CESG review of CCSDS MO M&C Services book</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
<br>
</font><font size=2 face="Arial"><br>
Peter,</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 face="Arial"><br>
<br>
could you please kindly reply to my note and provide the PIDs?</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font><font size=2 face="Arial"><br>
<br>
Thanks</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 face="Arial"><br>
<br>
__Mario</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=1 color=#800080 face="sans-serif"><br>
----- Forwarded by Mario Merri/esoc/ESA on 16/02/2017 10:03 -----</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif"><br>
<br>
From: </font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Mario
Merri/esoc/ESA</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif"><br>
To: </font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">"Shames,
Peter M (312B)" <peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov></font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif"><br>
Cc: </font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">"Dan
Smith" <danford.s.smith@nasa.gov>, "Barkley, Erik J (3970)"
<erik.j.barkley@jpl.nasa.gov>, "Nestor Peccia" <Nestor.Peccia@esa.int>,
"Sam Cooper" <sam@brightascension.com>, "Secretariat@mailman.ccsds.org"
<Secretariat@mailman.ccsds.org>, cesg@mailman.ccsds.org</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif"><br>
Date: </font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">10/02/2017
23:13</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif"><br>
Subject: </font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Re:
CESG review of CCSDS MO M&C Services book</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font>
<div align=center>
<hr noshade></div>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><br>
</font><font size=2 face="Arial"><br>
<br>
Dear Peter,</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 face="Arial"><br>
<br>
Sam will proceed as you recommended, i.e. Sam will update the document
so that you can re-re-review it, but only for the showstopper issues. <br>
<br>
As done already at the last CESG in Rome, Brigitte and I would like to
voice again our discontent on your approach that repeated also on this
CESG poll. What we had agreed in Rome and agreed by the CMC was:</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font><font size=2 color=blue face="Arial"><b><br>
<br>
Scope of conditions prior to Publication (including AD/DAD participation
in Agency Reviews)</b></font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 color=blue face="Arial"><br>
- CESG suggests that AD/DAD minimize their conditions at time of
CESG book publication polls. CESG members have the opportunity to raise
technical issues prior / during Agency Review(s)</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font><font size=2 color=blue face="Arial"><br>
...</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 color=blue face="Arial"><br>
- CESG recommends to raise PIDs (Poll Item Discrepancy) at least for showstopper
conditions during polls and identify conditions that are non showstopper
as such.</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 face="Arial"><br>
<br>
We believe that your 91 points raised at CESG poll for publication and
your insistence to have the document re-updated (after the already made
update that followed the Agency Review) for your own personal review are
not in line with the above agreement. <b>We repeat once more: your detailed
comments are very welcome, but they must be channelled through the Agency
Review</b>. If this is not done, the already scarce agency resources will
be wasted with work duplication and with frustrated WG members.</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font><font size=2 face="Arial"><br>
<br>
In order to speed up the work and respect the agreement in Rome, could
you please generate asap the PIDs for those points that you consider showstoppers.
For those, Sam will provide you with the red-lined version of the document.
Please provide the PIDs by eob 14Feb17 (they should have been provided
at the closure of the CESG poll). We think that this is an acceptable compromise
at this stage. In the future, ideally this should not happen again and
your detailed comment must be raised during the agency review period.</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font><font size=2 face="Arial"><br>
<br>
Regards,</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 face="Arial"><br>
<br>
__Mario</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> <br>
<br>
</font><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif"><br>
<br>
From: </font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">"Shames,
Peter M (312B)" <peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov></font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif"><br>
To: </font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">"Sam
Cooper" <sam@brightascension.com>, "Barkley, Erik J (3970)"
<erik.j.barkley@jpl.nasa.gov></font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif"><br>
Cc: </font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">"Secretariat@mailman.ccsds.org"
<Secretariat@mailman.ccsds.org>, "Mario Merri" <Mario.Merri@esa.int>,
"Dan Smith" <danford.s.smith@nasa.gov>, "Nestor Peccia"
<Nestor.Peccia@esa.int></font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif"><br>
Date: </font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">09/02/2017
22:41</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif"><br>
Subject: </font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Re:
CESG review of CCSDS MO M&C Services book</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font>
<div align=center>
<hr noshade></div>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><br>
<br>
</font><font size=2 face="Calibri"><br>
<br>
Hi Sam,</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> <br>
</font><font size=2 face="Calibri"><br>
In my viewer I see your comments stacked on top of mine and have to separate
them and view them separately. I did that for quite a number, so
I saw what you had replied. In some cases your notes said "Accepted"
as in this case. In others there was some other sort of a reply that
indicated agreement, or issues. Some of the conditions asked for
new figures or clarifications. And with all of that there are really
a significant number of changes requested for clarifications and re-wording.</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
<br>
</font><font size=2 face="Calibri"><br>
If there were just a few issues using the PDF document could be made to
work. But in this case, until I see the document that is the result
of all these changes I could not possibly provide approval. I do
not think that trying to do this as an exchange of annotations and notes
in the PDF file is going to be a good way to accomplish this, so I suggest
resorting to actually editing the document.</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
<br>
</font><font size=2 face="Calibri"><br>
Regards, Peter</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> <br>
<br>
</font><font size=3 face="Calibri"><b><br>
From: </b>Sam Cooper <sam@brightascension.com><b><br>
Date: </b>Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 12:39 AM<b><br>
To: </b>Peter Shames <peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov>, Erik Barkley
<erik.j.barkley@jpl.nasa.gov><b><br>
Cc: </b>CCSDS Secretariat <Secretariat@mailman.ccsds.org>, Mario
Merri <Mario.Merri@esa.int>, Dan Smith <danford.s.smith@nasa.gov>,
Nestor Peccia <Nestor.Peccia@esa.int><b><br>
Subject: </b>Re: CESG review of CCSDS MO M&C Services book</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
<br>
<br>
Hi Peter,<br>
<br>
I would really like to acoid that situation as I would like to have consensus
on each point before making the changes, this would be in the hope of avoiding
multiple revisions (and update/review cycles).<br>
<br>
I think the problem might be the use of PDF as a review medium, although
I wonder if the PDF viewer you are using is missing some feature as I do
not see what you see:<br>
<br>
</font><img src=cid:_4_09DF147409DF0754003EEA02C12580D8 style="border:0px solid;"><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><br>
<br>
<br>
As you can see, my comment is located in your comment as a reply. The version
of Acrobat that I am using is:<br>
</font><img src=cid:_4_09DF171C09DF0754003EEA02C12580D8 style="border:0px solid;"><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><br>
<br>
<br>
Shall we try again to use the PDF tools? It should be noted that the version
you just sent me has had the replies split, so you would have to go back
to the original I sent out before.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Sam.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 09/02/2017 04:42, Shames, Peter M (312B) wrote: </font><font size=2 face="Calibri"><br>
Hi Sam,</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> <br>
</font><font size=2 face="Calibri"><br>
In trying to follow what you propose to change using this "my note
covers your note" approach I cannot get any kind of clear picture
of what the final document is going to look like. I suggest that
you attempt to implement the requested changes (at least those that you
agree with) and re-submit the integrated result. I commit to reviewing
that and either concurring, or not, as seems appropriate.</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
<br>
</font><font size=2 face="Calibri"><br>
Thanks, Peter</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> <br>
<br>
</font><font size=3 face="Calibri"><b><br>
From: </b>Sam Cooper </font><a href=mailto:sam@brightascension.com><font size=3 color=#0082bf face="Calibri"><u><sam@brightascension.com></u></font></a><font size=3 face="Calibri"><b><br>
Date: </b>Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 1:21 AM<b><br>
To: </b>Peter Shames </font><a href=mailto:peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov><font size=3 color=#0082bf face="Calibri"><u><peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov></u></font></a><font size=3 face="Calibri">,
Erik Barkley </font><a href=mailto:erik.j.barkley@jpl.nasa.gov><font size=3 color=#0082bf face="Calibri"><u><erik.j.barkley@jpl.nasa.gov></u></font></a><font size=3 face="Calibri"><b><br>
Cc: </b>CCSDS Secretariat </font><a href=mailto:Secretariat@mailman.ccsds.org><font size=3 color=#0082bf face="Calibri"><u><Secretariat@mailman.ccsds.org></u></font></a><font size=3 face="Calibri">,
Mario Merri </font><a href=mailto:Mario.Merri@esa.int><font size=3 color=#0082bf face="Calibri"><u><Mario.Merri@esa.int></u></font></a><font size=3 face="Calibri">,
Dan Smith </font><a href=mailto:danford.s.smith@nasa.gov><font size=3 color=#0082bf face="Calibri"><u><danford.s.smith@nasa.gov></u></font></a><font size=3 face="Calibri">,
Nestor Peccia </font><a href=mailto:Nestor.Peccia@esa.int><font size=3 color=#0082bf face="Calibri"><u><Nestor.Peccia@esa.int></u></font></a><font size=3 face="Calibri"><b><br>
Subject: </b>CESG review of CCSDS MO M&C Services book</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
<br>
<br>
Dear Erik and Peter,<br>
<br>
Thank you for taking the time to review the specification and provide your
comments. Please find attached the WG response to your comments including
the detailed marked up copy from Peter (I have responded in the PDF like
you did Peter).<br>
<br>
Please could you let us have your response by Friday the 3rd of Feb.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
Sam.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font><font size=2 face="Courier New"><br>
This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee
or addressees only.</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 face="Courier New"><br>
The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in whole
or in part) of its</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 face="Courier New"><br>
content is not permitted.</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 face="Courier New"><br>
If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete
it from your system.</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 face="Courier New"><br>
Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the sender.</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font><font size=2 face="Courier New"><br>
</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 face="Courier New"><br>
Please consider the environment before printing this email.</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font><font size=2 face="Courier New"><br>
[attachment "MO M&C Services Input for Blue Compared to Red 3.doc"
deleted by Mario Merri/esoc/ESA] [attachment "PID SEA-522x1b0-001.txt"
deleted by Mario Merri/esoc/ESA] </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New">This message and any attachments are
intended for the use of the addressee or addressees only.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New">The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination
or copying (either in whole or in part) of its</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New">content is not permitted.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New">If you received this message in error,
please notify the sender and delete it from your system.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New">Emails can be altered and their integrity
cannot be guaranteed by the sender.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New">Please consider the environment before
printing this email.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New">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>
<br>
</font>
<br>
<br>
<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>