<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns:mv="http://macVmlSchemaUri" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Title" content="">
<meta name="Keywords" content="">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Arial;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Courier New";
panose-1:2 7 3 9 2 2 5 2 4 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:sans-serif;
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"MS Mincho";
panose-1:2 2 6 9 4 2 5 8 3 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Courier;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Calibri;
color:windowtext;}
span.msoIns
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-style-name:"";
text-decoration:underline;
color:teal;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
</head>
<body bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Dear Mario,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">If we take this at face value then 6.2.5.2 "technical issues" is even more strict than "substantive changes", which includes a value judgement. Without getting all pedantic (or no more
so than usual), there is the question in the strict clause of just what constitutes a "technical issue". For definitions we have:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Technical:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">"of, relating to, or specializing in industrial, practical, or mechanical arts and applied sciences " <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">"relating to or characteristic of a particular field of activity" <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Issue:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">"topic of interest or discussion" <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">"an important subject requiring a decision"<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">In a really strict reading of this term "technical issue" you could say that that any one single "important subject requiring a decision" meets the test. That would mean that a change
in a field in a spec from a "6" to a "7", that was a conscious change (requiring a decision) as opposed to a typo (a mistake) would trigger another agency review.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Personally I do not think we should go that far, largely because a) it really is not a substantive change, b) dealing with that level of change is trivial, and c) Agency Reviews are costly
and time consuming. So my preference would be to not apply that sort of very strict interpretation of clause 6.2.5.2 but to be more reasonable about it. I believe that this is, in fact, how we have operated in the past and I am not suggesting that we change
that.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">But this is a matter for wider CESG discussion. What I have stated here is just my opinion, not a mandate.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Regards, Peter<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><b><span style="font-family:Calibri;color:black">From:
</span></b><span style="font-family:Calibri;color:black">Mario Merri <Mario.Merri@esa.int><br>
<b>Date: </b>Friday, March 3, 2017 at 3:27 AM<br>
<b>To: </b>Peter Shames <peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov><br>
<b>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><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: CESG review of CCSDS MO M&C Services book<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial">Dear Peter,</span>
<br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial">OK, then we move on following the below approach.</span>
<br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial">As for the YB, I recommend you give a second read. In fact in section 6.2.5.2 it is stated:</span>
<br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue">a) if technical issues are identified in the course of a review, those issues must be</span>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue">resolved and the review must be repeated before approval can be sought for a change</span>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue">of document status;</span>
<br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family: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.</span> <br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial">The "substantive changes" come only in the clause</span>
<br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue">c) if substantive changes are made to a document that has completed review without</span>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue">technical comment, the Secretariat shall conduct a final review in which Agencies</span>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue">can approve or reject the document but may not suggest additional changes;</span>
<br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family: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.</span> <br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family: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.</span>
<br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial">Regards,</span> <br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial">__Mario</span> <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"sans-serif","serif";color:#5F5F5F">From: </span><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"sans-serif","serif"">"Shames, Peter M (312B)" <peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov></span>
<br>
<span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"sans-serif","serif";color:#5F5F5F">To: </span><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"sans-serif","serif"">"Mario.Merri@esa.int" <Mario.Merri@esa.int></span>
<br>
<span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"sans-serif","serif";color:#5F5F5F">Cc: </span><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"sans-serif","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></span>
<br>
<span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"sans-serif","serif";color:#5F5F5F">Date: </span><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"sans-serif","serif"">01/03/2017 20:19</span>
<br>
<span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"sans-serif","serif";color:#5F5F5F">Subject: </span><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"sans-serif","serif"">Re: CESG review of CCSDS MO M&C Services book</span>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:center">
<hr size="2" width="100%" noshade="" style="color:#AAAAAA" align="center">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><br>
<br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Dear Mario,</span> <br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span> <br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family: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.</span> <br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span> <br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family: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.</span>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span> <br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family: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. </span> <br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span> <br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family: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:</span>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span> <br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Calibri">"having substance : involving matters of major or
</span><a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/practical#h1"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Calibri">practical</span></a><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> importance to all concerned"</span>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Calibri">"considerable in amount or numbers"</span>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span> <br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Calibri">or, from Vocabulary.com</span>
<br>
<b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Calibri">"</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Calibri">having a firm basis in reality and being therefore important, meaningful, or considerable"</span>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span> <br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Calibri">or, from Dictionary.com</span>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Calibri">"possessing substance; having practical importance, value, or effect"</span>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span> <br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family: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?</span>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span> <br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Best regards, Peter</span> <br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span> <br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span> <br>
<b><span style="font-family:Calibri">From: </span></b><span style="font-family:Calibri">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</span> <br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial">Dear Peter,</span> <br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial"><br>
sorry for the late answer, but I have been one week on holiday.</span> <br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family: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.</span>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family: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.</span>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family: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:</span> <br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol">· </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt"> </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol">
</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt"> </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol">
</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt"> </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol">
</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt"> </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol">
</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial">No need for CESG/CMC poll for AR (allowed by the YB)</span>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol">· </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt"> </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol">
</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt"> </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol">
</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt"> </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol">
</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt"> </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol">
</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family: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.</span> <br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol">· </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt"> </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol">
</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt"> </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol">
</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt"> </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol">
</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt"> </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol">
</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family: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.</span>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family: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.</span>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"sans-serif","serif""><br>
Regards,</span> <br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"sans-serif","serif""><br>
__Mario</span> <br>
<br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"sans-serif","serif";color:#5F5F5F"><br>
From: </span><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"sans-serif","serif"">"Shames, Peter M (312B)" <peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov></span>
<span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"sans-serif","serif";color:#5F5F5F"><br>
To: </span><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"sans-serif","serif"">"Mario.Merri@esa.int" <Mario.Merri@esa.int></span>
<span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"sans-serif","serif";color:#5F5F5F"><br>
Cc: </span><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"sans-serif","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></span>
<span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"sans-serif","serif";color:#5F5F5F"><br>
Date: </span><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"sans-serif","serif"">16/02/2017 19:17</span>
<span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"sans-serif","serif";color:#5F5F5F"><br>
Subject: </span><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"sans-serif","serif"">Re: CESG review of CCSDS MO M&C Services book</span>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:center">
<hr size="2" width="100%" noshade="" style="color:#AAAAAA" align="center">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><br>
<br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><br>
Mario,</span> <span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><br>
</span> <span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family: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.</span> <span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Calibri">
<br>
</span> <span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#0082BF"><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>:</span> <span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#0082BF">
<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</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Calibri">;
</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"MS Mincho"">
</span> <span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Calibri">
<br>
</span> <span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family: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 "<span style="color:#0082BF">identifying
“red flag” items where technical work in a proposed CCSDS document is not of the required quality or nature</span>". 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.</span>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><br>
</span> <span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family: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.</span>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><br>
</span> <b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#0082BF"><br>
6.2.5 Formal Agency Review</span></b> <span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#0082BF">
<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;
</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"MS Mincho";color:#0082BF">
</span>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#0082BF"><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;
</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"MS Mincho";color:#0082BF">
</span>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family: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.</span>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><br>
</span> <span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family: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.</span>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><br>
</span> <span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><br>
The "Show Stopper" PID that you requested is attached.</span> <span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Calibri">
<br>
</span> <span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><br>
Regards, Peter Shames</span> <span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><br>
</span> <span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><br>
</span> <span style="font-size:10.0pt"><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: </span><a href="Peter.M.Shames@jpl.nasa.gov"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Peter.M.Shames@jpl.nasa.gov</span></a><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><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</span><br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><br>
</span> <span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><br>
</span> <span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><br>
</span> <b><span style="font-family:Calibri"><br>
From: </span></b><span style="font-family:Calibri">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</span> <br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial"><br>
Peter,</span> <span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial"><br>
<br>
could you please kindly reply to my note and provide the PIDs?</span> <span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial">
<br>
<br>
Thanks</span> <span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial"><br>
<br>
__Mario</span> <span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"sans-serif","serif";color:purple">
<br>
----- Forwarded by Mario Merri/esoc/ESA on 16/02/2017 10:03 -----</span> <span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"sans-serif","serif";color:#5F5F5F">
<br>
<br>
From: </span><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"sans-serif","serif"">Mario Merri/esoc/ESA</span>
<span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"sans-serif","serif";color:#5F5F5F"><br>
To: </span><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"sans-serif","serif"">"Shames, Peter M (312B)" <peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov></span>
<span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"sans-serif","serif";color:#5F5F5F"><br>
Cc: </span><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"sans-serif","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</span>
<span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"sans-serif","serif";color:#5F5F5F"><br>
Date: </span><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"sans-serif","serif"">10/02/2017 23:13</span>
<span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"sans-serif","serif";color:#5F5F5F"><br>
Subject: </span><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"sans-serif","serif"">Re: CESG review of CCSDS MO M&C Services book</span>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:center">
<hr size="2" width="100%" noshade="" style="color:#AAAAAA" align="center">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial"><br>
<br>
Dear Peter,</span> <span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family: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:</span>
<b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue"><br>
<br>
Scope of conditions prior to Publication (including AD/DAD participation in Agency Reviews)</span></b>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue"><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)</span>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue"><br>
...</span> <span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue"><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.</span>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family: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.</span>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family: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.</span> <span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial"><br>
<br>
Regards,</span> <span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial"><br>
<br>
__Mario</span> <br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"sans-serif","serif";color:#5F5F5F"><br>
<br>
From: </span><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"sans-serif","serif"">"Shames, Peter M (312B)" <peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov></span>
<span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"sans-serif","serif";color:#5F5F5F"><br>
To: </span><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"sans-serif","serif"">"Sam Cooper" <sam@brightascension.com>, "Barkley, Erik J (3970)" <erik.j.barkley@jpl.nasa.gov></span>
<span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"sans-serif","serif";color:#5F5F5F"><br>
Cc: </span><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"sans-serif","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></span>
<span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"sans-serif","serif";color:#5F5F5F"><br>
Date: </span><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"sans-serif","serif"">09/02/2017 22:41</span>
<span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"sans-serif","serif";color:#5F5F5F"><br>
Subject: </span><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"sans-serif","serif"">Re: CESG review of CCSDS MO M&C Services book</span>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:center">
<hr size="2" width="100%" noshade="" style="color:#AAAAAA" align="center">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<br>
<br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><br>
<br>
Hi Sam,</span> <br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family: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.</span>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family: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.</span>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><br>
Regards, Peter</span> <br>
<br>
<b><span style="font-family:Calibri"><br>
From: </span></b><span style="font-family:Calibri">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</span> <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>
<img border="0" width="1920" height="1042" id="_x0000_i1029" src="cid:image001.png@01D29408.53E60B40"><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>
<img border="0" width="595" height="520" id="_x0000_i1030" src="cid:image002.png@01D29408.53E60B40"><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: <span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Calibri">
<br>
Hi Sam,</span> <br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family: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.</span>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><br>
Thanks, Peter</span> <br>
<br>
<b><span style="font-family:Calibri"><br>
From: </span></b><span style="font-family:Calibri">Sam Cooper </span><a href="mailto:sam@brightascension.com"><span style="font-family:Calibri;color:#0082BF"><sam@brightascension.com></span></a><b><span style="font-family:Calibri"><br>
Date: </span></b><span style="font-family:Calibri">Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 1:21 AM<b><br>
To: </b>Peter Shames </span><a href="mailto:peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov"><span style="font-family:Calibri;color:#0082BF"><peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov></span></a><span style="font-family:Calibri">, Erik Barkley
</span><a href="mailto:erik.j.barkley@jpl.nasa.gov"><span style="font-family:Calibri;color:#0082BF"><erik.j.barkley@jpl.nasa.gov></span></a><b><span style="font-family:Calibri"><br>
Cc: </span></b><span style="font-family:Calibri">CCSDS Secretariat </span><a href="mailto:Secretariat@mailman.ccsds.org"><span style="font-family:Calibri;color:#0082BF"><Secretariat@mailman.ccsds.org></span></a><span style="font-family:Calibri">, Mario Merri
</span><a href="mailto:Mario.Merri@esa.int"><span style="font-family:Calibri;color:#0082BF"><Mario.Merri@esa.int></span></a><span style="font-family:Calibri">, Dan Smith
</span><a href="mailto:danford.s.smith@nasa.gov"><span style="font-family:Calibri;color:#0082BF"><danford.s.smith@nasa.gov></span></a><span style="font-family:Calibri">, Nestor Peccia
</span><a href="mailto:Nestor.Peccia@esa.int"><span style="font-family:Calibri;color:#0082BF"><Nestor.Peccia@esa.int></span></a><b><span style="font-family:Calibri"><br>
Subject: </span></b><span style="font-family:Calibri">CESG review of CCSDS MO M&C Services book</span>
<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>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New""><br>
This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee or addressees only.</span>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New""><br>
The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in whole or in part) of its</span>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New""><br>
content is not permitted.</span> <span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"">
<br>
If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system.</span>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New""><br>
Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the sender.</span>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New""><br>
</span> <span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New""><br>
Please consider the environment before printing this email.</span> <span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"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]
</span><br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"">This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee or addressees only.</span>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"">The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in whole or in part) of its</span>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"">content is not permitted.</span>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"">If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system.</span>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"">Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the sender.</span>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New""> </span> <br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"">Please consider the environment before printing this email.</span>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New""> </span> <br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"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>
<br>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<pre style="margin-left:.5in">This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee or addressees only.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre style="margin-left:.5in">The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in whole or in part) of its<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre style="margin-left:.5in">content is not permitted.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre style="margin-left:.5in">If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre style="margin-left:.5in">Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the sender.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre style="margin-left:.5in">Please consider the environment before printing this email.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></pre>
</div>
</body>
</html>