<html 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="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)">
<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;}
/* 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:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
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";}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Courier;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Calibri;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Calibri;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle22
{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;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:259218324;
mso-list-template-ids:-351478528;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:.25in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:.55in;
text-indent:-.3in;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:.85in;
text-indent:-.35in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.2in;
text-indent:-.45in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-text:"%1\.%2\.%3\.%4\.%5\.";
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.55in;
text-indent:-.55in;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-text:"%1\.%2\.%3\.%4\.%5\.%6\.";
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.9in;
text-indent:-.65in;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-text:"%1\.%2\.%3\.%4\.%5\.%6\.%7\.";
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:2.25in;
text-indent:-.75in;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-text:"%1\.%2\.%3\.%4\.%5\.%6\.%7\.%8\.";
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:2.6in;
text-indent:-.85in;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-text:"%1\.%2\.%3\.%4\.%5\.%6\.%7\.%8\.%9\.";
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:3.0in;
text-indent:-1.0in;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:551423536;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:382914070 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l1:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l1:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l1:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style>
</head>
<body bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Thanks Keith,<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">After reading your comments I still think that the text in the minutes is rather mis-leading because it does not emphasize an important CESG responsibility. If it were worded in the following
way I could accept it:<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" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">2. Other CESG discussions<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">1. CESG Poll conditions:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">· Scope of conditions prior to Publication (including AD/DAD participation in Agency Reviews)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">The CESG recognizes that there are several opportunities for the CESG to affect a document and suggests that the AD/DAD minimize
her/his conditions at time of final book publication polls. Late inputs are often costly and should be avoided if at all possible. That said, it also re-affirms that the CESG, as a whole, has a responsibility to maintain the overall technical quality and
consistency of the evolving set of CCSDS Recommended Standards and Practices and that may require conditions be placed even at the last moment before publication. It is also the case that any member of CCSDS, including WG members, Chairs, AD, DAD, or other
may also participate in an agency review to express an agency position.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">· Are conditions un-rejectable by definition for all CESG Polls?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Conditions are not rejectable according to the YB, which contemplates a negotiation instance and possibly escalation if negotiation fails.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">CESG recommends to raise PIDs (Poll Item Discrepancy)
<span style="background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">during the polls,</span> <span style="background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">
using some suitable form</span>, at least for showstopper conditions, and identify conditions that are non showstopper as such.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">· Discussion of CESG and AD responsibilities<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> CESG reaffirms the spirit of the Proc & Org YB related to the AD responsibilities
<span style="background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">for maintaining and upholding the overall technical quality and consistency of the evolving set of CCSDS Recommended Standards and Practices.</span><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">Keith Scott <kscott@mitre.org><br>
<b>Date: </b>Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 1:53 PM<br>
<b>To: </b>Peter Shames <peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov>, Nestor Peccia <Nestor.Peccia@esa.int>, CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG All <cesg-all@mailman.ccsds.org>, CMC <CMC@mailman.ccsds.org><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [Cesg-all] Notes of the CESG Meeting on 24th October 2016<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:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">As I said in the meeting, I believe strongly that minimizing large (i.e. that would require additional agency reviews) technical RIDs coming during the final CESG
poll would be a Good Thing. My notion has always been that as an Area Director I had three opportunities to affect a book:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2">
<![if !supportLists]><span style="mso-list:Ignore">1.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span><![endif]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">During the initial CESG poll to release the book for agency review</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2">
<![if !supportLists]><span style="mso-list:Ignore">2.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span><![endif]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">During the agency review RID process</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2">
<![if !supportLists]><span style="mso-list:Ignore">3.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span><![endif]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">At the final CESG poll for publication</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">I get Peter’s point that CESG inputs during step 2 should be distinguished from agency inputs, and if that is indeed the case then I think we have a solution.
If it’s NOT the case then Ads should be more vigilant about raising issues during phase 1, with the intent/hope that no issues will need to be raised in phase 3. But, if the AD finds that the book is simply not acceptable, stopping it at the last stage before
publication, probably to be sent back for more agency reviews, is the right thing to do in order to maintain the overall technical quality and consistency of the evolving set of CCSDS Recommended Standards and Practices.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">I read Nestor’s comments as essentially agreeing with the above. CESG
<b>suggests</b> that we try to get the issues identified and addressed early. If we don’t/cant’, we risk stopping a book at the last stage and possibly sending it back for additional agency reviews, but we
<b>HAVE</b> to maintain quality first.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> --keith</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><o:p></o:p></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">CESG-All <cesg-all-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org> on behalf of Peter Shames <peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov><br>
<b>Date: </b>Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 2:14 PM<br>
<b>To: </b>Nestor Peccia <Nestor.Peccia@esa.int>, CCSDS All <cesg-all@mailman.ccsds.org>, "CCSDS Management Council(CMC@mailman.ccsds.org)" <CMC@mailman.ccsds.org><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [Cesg-all] Notes of the CESG Meeting on 24th October 2016</span><o:p></o:p></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:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Nestor, et al,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">I have an real issue with one of the statements made in your meeting minutes. This is under item 2, Other CESG Discussions, which states:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.75in"><span lang="PT-BR" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">2. Other CESG discussions</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.3in;text-indent:-.3in;mso-list:l0 level2 lfo4">
<![if !supportLists]><span style="mso-list:Ignore">1.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span><![endif]><span lang="PT-BR" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">CESG Poll conditions:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.6in;text-indent:-.35in;mso-list:l0 level3 lfo4">
<![if !supportLists]><span style="font-family:Symbol"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span lang="PT-BR" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Scope of conditions prior to Publication (including AD/DAD participation in Agency Reviews)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.75in"><span lang="PT-BR" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">CESG suggests to the AD/DAD to minimize her/his conditions at time of CESG book publication polls. CESG members
have the opportunity to raise technical issues prior / during Agency Review(s)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.6in;text-indent:-.35in;mso-list:l0 level3 lfo4">
<![if !supportLists]><span style="font-family:Symbol"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span lang="PT-BR" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Are conditions un-rejectable by definition for all CESG Polls?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.75in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Conditions are not rejectable according to the YB, which contemplates a negotiation instance and possibly escalation if negotiation fails.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.75in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.6in;text-indent:-.35in;mso-list:l0 level3 lfo4">
<![if !supportLists]><span style="font-family:Symbol"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Discussion of CESG and AD responsibilities</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.75in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> CESG reaffirms the spirit of the Proc & Org YB related to the AD responsibilities
<span style="background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">(for maintaining and upholding the overall technical quality and consistency of the evolving set of CCSDS Recommended Standards and Practices)</span>.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">The issue, as we discussed extensively during the CESG meeting, is that CESG members have specific roles and duties in regard assuring the technical quality of
CCSDS documents. This was discussed at length and I provided the set of materials (attached) extracted from the CCSDS Organization and Processes (A02.1-Y-4) that document those duties. My problem is that this wording in the minutes totally ignores the CESG
responsibilities requiring review of all published documents and again suggests that somehow CESG conditions should be "minimized" and just treated as agency inputs.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">As stated this is a total perversion of CESG responsibilities and it also, in essence, suggests that CESG inputs are just inputs from an agency instead of conditions
placed by a member of the CCSDS Engineering Steering Group with the express intent of ensuring consistency of the CCSDS standards (sec 2.3.2.2.d), and …</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.75in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">"</span><b><span style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">
</span></b><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Sec 2.3.2.3.a, “<u>maintaining and upholding the overall technical quality and consistency of the evolving set of CCSDS Recommended Standards and Practices</u>”</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">There is no expectation that members of CCSDS agencies will attend to these stated CESG technical responsibilities. These responsibilities are the expressly stated
province of the CESG and they must not be swept under the rug or minimized lest the quality of CCSDS standards, as a whole, will suffer. We already have far too many instances of CESG votes to "abstain, doesn't affect me" or "accept unconditionally", which
signals, at least to me, that these CESG responsibilities are being taken lightly.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">I acknowledge that one of the other concerns we discussed was that of efficient production of standards. This is a concern, as is holding up review and publication
for editorial "nits". In fact, the addition in item 2 in this list, involving the adoption of a PIDs (Poll Item Discrepancy) for "showstopper conditions" was intended to make this distinction clear. I think that the "scope of conditions" in item 1 was really
resolved by the introduction of the PID and not by the notion that CESG inputs should be "minimized" or swept into the category of "agency inputs".</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">I would ask that you amend the minutes to reflect this actual outcome of the CESG discussion and not persist in promoting this "AD conditions may be treated as
agency inputs" approach in the future. The added clause in item 3 should also be added, since this was the specific topic that was discussed, not just random AD responsibilities such as proving meeting agendas.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">One last comment on this topic. During the reorganization we intentionally patterned our procedures and even the new organization on the Internet, particularly
the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Internet Engineering Steering Board (IESG). Our working organization is equivalent to the IETF and the CESG is equivalent to the IESG. There are very many parallels in the CCSDS procedures and much of the
wording in A02.1-Y-4 was lifted directly from IETF documents.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Just yesterday Scott Burleigh pointed me to an excellent IETF document called the Tao of the IETF (<a href="https://www.ietf.org/tao.html)">https://www.ietf.org/tao.html)</a>.
There is one particular section I would draw your attention to now, which we might consider adopting in this context to augment the CCSDS procedures, from Sec 2.2.2:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">"</span>
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">The ADs for a particular Area are expected to know more about the combined work of the WGs in that Area than anyone else. On the other hand, the entire IESG reviews each Internet-Draft that is proposed to become
an RFC. Any AD may record a "DISCUSS" ballot position against a draft if he or she has serious concerns. If these concerns cannot be resolved by discussion, an override procedure is defined such that at least two IESG members must express concerns before a
draft can be blocked from moving forward. These procedures help ensure that an AD's "pet project" doesn't make it onto the standards track if it will have a negative effect on the rest of the IETF protocols and that an AD's "pet peeve" cannot indefinitely
block something. "</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><br>
This is the IETF language, but AD == CCSDS AD and WG == CCSDS WGs. Similarly, IESG == CESG. I'm reluctant to suggest more "rules", but would offer for discussion in the CESG an approach patterned on this, as an augmentation to A02.1-Y-4 Polling process, Sec
5.3.5. Perhaps we could add the following to the clauses in sec 5.3.5.4.3 Conditional Approval.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">If these conditions cannot be resolved by discussion, an override procedure is defined such that at least two CESG or CMC members must express concerns before
a document can be blocked from moving forward. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">NOTE: These procedures help ensure that an AD's "pet project" doesn't make it onto the standards track if it will have a negative effect on the rest of the CCSDS
protocols and that an AD's "pet peeve" cannot indefinitely block something.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">We do not have such a process now and it occurs to me that this addition might be a useful one in the case of "stand-offs" like the recent one that prompted this
discussion in the first place.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Regards, Peter</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in"><b><span style="font-family:Calibri;color:black">From:
</span></b><span style="font-family:Calibri;color:black">CESG-All <cesg-all-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org> on behalf of Nestor Peccia <Nestor.Peccia@esa.int><br>
<b>Date: </b>Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 12:27 AM<br>
<b>To: </b>CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG All <cesg-all@mailman.ccsds.org>, CMC <CMC@mailman.ccsds.org><br>
<b>Subject: </b>[Cesg-all] Notes of the CESG Meeting on 24th October 2016</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Helvetica">Dear all,</span>
<br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Helvetica">Please find attached the notes of the last CESG meeting</span>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Helvetica">ciao</span> <br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Helvetica">nestor</span> <o:p></o:p></p>
<pre style="margin-left:1.0in">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:1.0in">The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in whole or in part) of its<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre style="margin-left:1.0in">content is not permitted.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre style="margin-left:1.0in">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:1.0in">Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the sender.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre style="margin-left:1.0in"> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre style="margin-left:1.0in">Please consider the environment before printing this email.<o:p></o:p></pre>
</div>
</body>
</html>