[Cesg-all] Fwd: Re: Review of new Space Link Protocols WG
Charter
T. Gannett
Thomas.Gannett@gsfc.nasa.gov
Fri, 26 Sep 2003 16:13:04 -0400
--=====================_24569388==.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Greg:
There are no procedures for publishing RIDs against Blue Books. Updates to
Blue Books are always handled (and always have been handled) by preparing
and approving a markup within a working group (formerly within a
panel/subpanel). If your WG is chartered to do an update, then the WG must
produce the proposed Pink Sheets and get approval, first from the Area and
CESG, and then from the CMC, to release them for Agency review. The
Secretariat does not become involved until the CMC approves release of the
Pink Sheets. Under no circumstances are new Pink Sheets ever sent out for
Agency review without prior CMC approval.
Reviews of Red Books/Pink sheets subsequent to their initial issue have in
the past been handled without additional approval, as was done for issues
2-n of the Proximity Red Book. The first issue of a review document has
always required Management Council approval. In the case of updates to
published Blue Books, Pink Sheets are new review documents. The
Secretariat has no authority to do anything with new Pink Sheets without
direction from the CMC; i.e., there must be a resolution authorizing their
release.
Note that there is nothing new in any of this. These are the procedures
that have always been in place, and they are clearly documented in the
Procedures Manual.
TG
At 03:08 PM 9/26/2003, Greg J Kazz wrote:
>Adrian,
>
>My AD has approved the updated to my WG. See below. Would you please
>have the CESG approve it?
>
>These RIDs came out on Sept. 5, 2003. It's been 3 weeks since they were
>sent to the secretariat for publication.
>
>I followed the CESG procedure. We need to disposition these RIDs at the
>Fall 2003 CCSDS meeting to ensure that ELECTRA is backward compatible with
>MEX and ODY. We don't need a BOF on that topic.
>
>As I stated before in my previous email message, the impact to the
>NASA/JPL ELECTRA project due to these RIDs is significant. The fact that
>ELECTRA transceiver is a multi-mission project and looked upon as a
>multi-agency capability is another important reason to have this WG
>disposition these RIDs.
>
>Greg
>
>>Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 18:08:54 +0100
>>From: Jean-Luc.Gerner@esa.int
>>Subject: Re: Review of new Space Link Protocols WG Charter
>>To: Greg J Kazz <Greg.J.Kazz@jpl.nasa.gov>
>>Cc: Adrian.J.Hooke@jpl.nasa.gov
>>X-Lotus-FromDomain: ESA
>>
>>Greg,
>>As already said, no objection from my side. The new version of the charter is
>>fine with me.
>>Adrian, is it fine with you?
>>regards
>>Greg J Kazz <greg.j.kazz@jpl.nasa.gov> on 09/24/2003 04:50:27 PM
>>
>>To: Jean-Luc.Gerner@esa.int, Adrian.J.Hooke@jpl.nasa.gov
>>cc: Peter.M.Shames@jpl.nasa.gov, Wallace.S.Tai@jpl.nasa.gov
>>
>>
>>Subject: Re: Review of new Space Link Protocols WG Charter
>>
>>
>>Jean-Luc, Adrian,
>>
>>Answering Jean-Luc's reply below:
>>
>>I have submitted changes to the SLS Space Protocols WG which basically
>>includes review and disposition of RIDs written against existing or
>>emerging CCSDS link layer protocol recommendations.
>>
>>Proximity-1 Space Link Protocol was split into three new blue books and
>>published and released on the CCSDS Web site in August 2003 as per the MC
>>directive. It's not a question of releasing these documents for
>>international review. They have already been released.
>>
>>The NASA/JPL ELECTRA Project waited until the new restructured proximity-1
>>books were out before they submitted their RIDs to me, the NASA coordinator
>>for RIDs against these documents. The SLS Space Link Protocols WG needs to
>>discuss and provide a disposition of these RIDS at the Fall 2002 meeting.
>>
>>Can we get this WG updated charter approved so that the CCSDS secretariat
>>can put these RIDs on the CCSDS web site for international agency review
>>ASAP?
>>
>>thanks,
>>
>>Greg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>At 9/23/2003 06:58 PM, you wrote:
>> >Greg,
>> >In this case, as I understand, these new books require to go through agency
>> >review to give also other agencies the chance to review and comments the
>> >documents. I may not be fully clear of how things should be handled but my
>> >feeling is that Adrian might request that the request for extra agency
>> review
>> >goes to the CESG. I will inquire Adrian about this.
>> >regards
>> >Jean-Luc
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>CESG-all mailing list
>CESG-all@mailman.ccsds.org
>http://mailman.ccsds.org/mailman/listinfo/cesg-all
--=====================_24569388==.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
<html>
Greg:<br><br>
There are no procedures for publishing RIDs against Blue Books.
Updates to Blue Books are always handled (and always have been handled)
by preparing and approving a markup within a working group (formerly
within a panel/subpanel). If your WG is chartered to do an update,
then the WG must produce the proposed Pink Sheets and get approval, first
from the Area and CESG, and then from the CMC, to release them for Agency
review. The Secretariat does not become involved until the CMC
approves release of the Pink Sheets. Under no circumstances are new
Pink Sheets ever sent out for Agency review without prior CMC
approval.<br><br>
Reviews of Red Books/Pink sheets <u>subsequent to their initial issue</u>
have in the past been handled without additional approval, as was done
for issues 2-n of the Proximity Red Book. The <u>first</u> issue of
a review document has always required Management Council approval.
In the case of updates to published Blue Books, Pink Sheets are new
review documents. The Secretariat has no authority to do anything
with new Pink Sheets without direction from the CMC; i.e., there
must be a resolution authorizing their release.<br><br>
Note that there is nothing new in any of this. These are the
procedures that have always been in place, and they are clearly
documented in the Procedures Manual.<br><br>
TG<br><br>
<br><br>
At 03:08 PM 9/26/2003, Greg J Kazz wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>Adrian,<br><br>
My AD has approved the updated to my WG. See below. Would you please
have the CESG approve it?<br><br>
These RIDs came out on Sept. 5, 2003. It's been 3 weeks since they were
sent to the secretariat for publication.<br><br>
I followed the CESG procedure. We need to disposition these RIDs at the
Fall 2003 CCSDS meeting to ensure that ELECTRA is backward compatible
with MEX and ODY. We don't need a BOF on that topic.<br>
<br>
As I stated before in my previous email message, the impact to the
NASA/JPL ELECTRA project due to these RIDs is significant. The fact
that ELECTRA transceiver is a multi-mission project and looked upon as a
multi-agency capability is another important reason to have this WG
disposition these RIDs.<br><br>
Greg<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 18:08:54
+0100<br>
From: Jean-Luc.Gerner@esa.int<br>
Subject: Re: Review of new Space Link Protocols WG Charter<br>
To: Greg J Kazz <Greg.J.Kazz@jpl.nasa.gov><br>
Cc: Adrian.J.Hooke@jpl.nasa.gov<br>
X-Lotus-FromDomain: ESA<br><br>
Greg,<br>
As already said, no objection from my side. The new version of the
charter is<br>
fine with me.<br>
Adrian, is it fine with you?<br>
regards<br>
Greg J Kazz <greg.j.kazz@jpl.nasa.gov> on 09/24/2003 04:50:27
PM<br><br>
To: Jean-Luc.Gerner@esa.int, Adrian.J.Hooke@jpl.nasa.gov<br>
cc: Peter.M.Shames@jpl.nasa.gov,
Wallace.S.Tai@jpl.nasa.gov<br><br>
<br>
Subject: Re: Review of new Space Link Protocols WG
Charter<br><br>
<br>
Jean-Luc, Adrian,<br><br>
Answering Jean-Luc's reply below:<br><br>
I have submitted changes to the SLS Space Protocols WG which
basically<br>
includes review and disposition of RIDs written against existing or<br>
emerging CCSDS link layer protocol recommendations.<br><br>
Proximity-1 Space Link Protocol was split into three new blue books
and<br>
published and released on the CCSDS Web site in August 2003 as per the
MC<br>
directive. It's not a question of releasing these documents for<br>
international review. They have already been released.<br><br>
The NASA/JPL ELECTRA Project waited until the new restructured
proximity-1<br>
books were out before they submitted their RIDs to me, the NASA
coordinator<br>
for RIDs against these documents. The SLS Space Link Protocols WG needs
to<br>
discuss and provide a disposition of these RIDS at the Fall 2002
meeting.<br><br>
Can we get this WG updated charter approved so that the CCSDS
secretariat<br>
can put these RIDs on the CCSDS web site for international agency review
ASAP?<br><br>
thanks,<br><br>
Greg<br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
At 9/23/2003 06:58 PM, you wrote:<br>
>Greg,<br>
>In this case, as I understand, these new books require to go through
agency<br>
>review to give also other agencies the chance to review and comments
the<br>
>documents. I may not be fully clear of how things should be handled
but my<br>
>feeling is that Adrian might request that the request for extra
agency review<br>
>goes to the CESG. I will inquire Adrian about this.<br>
>regards<br>
>Jean-Luc</blockquote><br><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
CESG-all mailing list<br>
CESG-all@mailman.ccsds.org<br>
<a href="http://mailman.ccsds.org/mailman/listinfo/cesg-all" eudora="autourl">http://mailman.ccsds.org/mailman/listinfo/cesg-all</a></blockquote></html>
--=====================_24569388==.ALT--