[Cesg-all] AOS PINK SHEETS (was RE: [CMC] RP A3-07
Announcement of.,.)
T. Gannett
Thomas.Gannett@gsfc.nasa.gov
Thu, 21 Aug 2003 13:31:09 -0400
--=====================_13502165==.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
At 12:16 PM 8/21/2003, Adrian J. Hooke wrote:
>>At 11:38 AM 7/10/2003, ccsds_rapporteur wrote:
>>>The following draft CCSDS Recommendation has been placed on line for
>>>CCSDS Agency review:
>>> CCSDS 701.0-P-3.1. Advanced Orbiting Systems, Networks and Data
>>> Links: Architectural Specification.
>>> Pink Sheets. April 2003.
>>>DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: This draft update to the Advanced Orbiting
>>>Systems, Networks and Data Links: Architectural Specification
>>>Recommendation modifies the VCDU Header by converting three of seven
>>>spare bits into a new VCDU Counter Extension field.
>
>
>At 07:57 AM 8/21/2003, Fred Brosi wrote:
>>Did we ever reach a resolution on this? My current feeling is that we are
>>a long way from a "Pink" proposal.
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>Fred: if you go to http://www.ccsds.org/review/rpa307/rpa307.html you will
>see that the deadline for Agency review comments is 10 September.
>
>However, several things are NOT stated in that "REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF
>CCSDS DOCUMENT":
>
>a. What's the context and history of this document?
>b. What's its prior review history and where is its supporting data base
>of dispositioned RIDs?
>c. Did the CESG approve it prior to its being approved for review by the CMC?
>
>I suspect that this document is one of those that is caught in the
>transition between the "old" and the "new" ways of doing business. Tom and
>Bob: can you comment?
I have the following comments:
1) The controlling thing with this document is that the MC approved its
release for Agency review at the spring 2003 meeting (the interim P1 chair
requested that they do so). It was approved, incidentally, despite
repeated requests from the Secretariat that we stop revising the
specifications that serve as the basis of the restructured
Recommendations. In any event, Panel 1 approved it at a time when the CESG
did not yet exist.
2) The reviewership for international reviews is broad and includes a great
many people who neither know of nor care about the inner workings of the
CCSDS. Whether the CESG approved its release would have no significance to
most of them and would have no relevance in any event, since the MC
approved its release. Since all future documents will be evaluated by the
CESG before going to the MC, the condition of CESG approval must be
inferred if a document has been released by the CCSDS.
3) Other information, e.g., context, is likely to have little or no
significance to reviewers because they are likely to be experts in the
limited field to which the document relates. Prior review history is
always noted in the Document Description (since there is no notation in
this case, there are no prior reviews of this revision).
4) The Secretariat has gone to great lengths to keep the "Request for
Review" as simple as possibly to enable conveyance of basic information
with relative easy. Adding additional information to the review
announcements/cover sheets would add clutter; whether the value of the
added clutter would justify the consequent reduction in ease use is not clear.
5) I would suggest that, if a decision is made to add additional
information to the "Request for Review" cover sheet, it should be added as
a link whose target is some location in the public CESG collection in
DocuShare.
Bob may have additional comments.
Best regards,
Tom Gannett
--=====================_13502165==.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
<html>
At 12:16 PM 8/21/2003, Adrian J. Hooke
wrote:<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>
<dl><font color="#0000FF">
<dd>At 11:38 AM 7/10/2003, ccsds_rapporteur
wrote:<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>
<dd>The following draft CCSDS Recommendation has been placed on line for
CCSDS Agency review:
<dd> CCSDS 701.0-P-3.1. Advanced Orbiting
Systems, Networks and Data Links: Architectural Specification.
<dd>
Pink Sheets. April 2003.
<dd>DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: This draft update to the Advanced
Orbiting Systems, Networks and Data Links: Architectural Specification
Recommendation modifies the VCDU Header by converting three of seven
spare bits into a new VCDU Counter Extension
field.</font></blockquote></blockquote>
</dl><br>
<font color="#0000FF"> <br>
</font><font color="#800080">At 07:57 AM 8/21/2003, Fred Brosi
wrote:<br>
</font><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><font face="arial" size=2 color="#800080">Did
we ever reach a resolution on this? My current feeling is that we are a
long way from a "Pink"
proposal.</font></blockquote>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++<br><br>
Fred: if you go to
<a href="http://www.ccsds.org/review/rpa307/rpa307.html" eudora="autourl">http://www.ccsds.org/review/rpa307/rpa307.html</a>
you will see that the deadline for Agency review comments is 10 September. <br><br>
However, several things are NOT stated in that "REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF CCSDS DOCUMENT":<br><br>
a. What's the context and history of this document?<br>
b. What's its prior review history and where is its supporting data base of dispositioned RIDs?<br>
c. Did the CESG approve it prior to its being approved for review by the CMC?<br><br>
I suspect that this document is one of those that is caught in the transition between the "old" and the "new" ways of doing business. Tom and Bob: can you comment? </blockquote><br>
I have the following comments:<br><br>
1) The controlling thing with this document is that the MC approved its release for Agency review at the spring 2003 meeting (the interim P1 chair requested that they do so). It was approved, incidentally, despite repeated requests from the Secretariat that we stop revising the specifications that serve as the basis of the restructured Recommendations. In any event, Panel 1 approved it at a time when the CESG did not yet exist.<br><br>
2) The reviewership for international reviews is broad and includes a great many people who neither know of nor care about the inner workings of the CCSDS. Whether the CESG approved its release would have no significance to most of them and would have no relevance in any event, since the MC approved its release. Since all future documents will be evaluated by the CESG before going to the MC, the condition of CESG approval must be inferred if a document has been released by the CCSDS.<br><br>
3) Other information, e.g., context, is likely to have little or no significance to reviewers because they are likely to be experts in the limited field to which the document relates. Prior review history is always noted in the Document Description (since there is no notation in this case, there are no prior reviews of this revision).<br><br>
4) The Secretariat has gone to great lengths to keep the "Request for Review" as simple as possibly to enable conveyance of basic information with relative easy. Adding additional information to the review announcements/cover sheets would add clutter; whether the value of the added clutter would justify the consequent reduction in ease use is not clear.<br><br>
5) I would suggest that, if a decision is made to add additional information to the "Request for Review" cover sheet, it should be added as a link whose target is some location in the public CESG collection in DocuShare.<br><br>
Bob may have additional comments.<br><br>
Best regards,<br>
Tom Gannett</html>
--=====================_13502165==.ALT--