[Cesg-all] Fwd: Re: Review of new Space Link Protocols WG Charter

[Greg J Kazz]

Thanks Tom for your clarity.
I used the wrong word - publish.
I ment to say, the rids are distributed by the secretariat to the RID 
coordinator of the cognizant working group.
Greg
At 9/26/2003 01:13 PM, T. Gannett wrote:
>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