[Cesg-all] Fwd: Re: Review of new Space Link Protocols WG
Charter
Adrian J. Hooke
adrian.j.hooke@jpl.nasa.gov
Fri, 26 Sep 2003 15:49:32 -0700
--=====================_377368343==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Greg: first of all, the fact that your AD approved an update to your WG
charter means nothing - because you don't HAVE an approved WG charter in
the first place. We are still waiting for your Area Director to perform a
proper disposition to the charter RIDs that were levied against all SLS
Area WGs in June.
Even if the charter *was* approved, modifying it to add
indefinite-deliverable, indefinite-schedule, indefinite-resource statements
like -
"This WG is also involved in maintaining and upgrading existing CCSDS link
layer protocol recommendations."
- and -
"Provide the disposition of all RIDs written against CCSDS Link Layer
Protocol documents and associated documents that have become at least Red
books (have been out for agency review at least once)."
- isn't going to fly through the CESG, because your friendly Chairman is
not going to approve those kinds of blank-check, proposals. You and your AD
can appeal that position to the CMC if you want to, but you probably aren't
going to have much luck since this was exactly the sort of "standing army"
approach that the Restructuring was supposed to eliminate.
As Tom has told you, there is no such thing as a "RID against a Blue Book"
because a Blue Book is not (and never has been) a reviewable item. If liens
are identified against an existing Blue Book then the update to that Blue
Book is a brand new work item and the process is - as I explained this
morning - quite clear:
a. Have someone write up the concerns as a Concept Paper.
b. Get a BOF chartered to see if others agree that they are serious enough
to warrant a Blue Book update. If there is sufficient Agency consensus,
then a WG charter should be drafted to define how to perform the work.
c. Have the BOF present the draft WG charter and supporting rationale (the
Concept papers) to the AD for approval. Once again, to be approved a WG
charter
must have specific deliverables, specific schedules and specific
resource estimates.
It should be a stand-alone group, dedicated to a particular job, and
should not
be "piled-on" to an existing charter.
d. Have the AD get the WG charter approved by the CESG.
e. Have the CESG get the WG charter approved by the CMC.
None of the above needs to take more than a few days if the need is urgent
- but it has to be done. You are already well on your way to step c., so I
would suggest that you just go ahead and follow the process as a way to
succeed. In fact, I submit that more time and energy has already been
expended arguing about the process than would have been spent just "doing
it right the first time".
There is, of course, the separate issue of stability of Blue Books. I
presume that you are going to accompany step d. with a persuasive story
that explains why we are changing the Prox-1 Blue Book so soon after it was
originally issued? When I was a young lad like you, changing a Blue Book
was serious business.
Best regards
Adrian
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
At 01:37 PM 9/26/2003, Greg J Kazz wrote:
>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
>>>>
>>>>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
--=====================_377368343==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
<html>
Greg: first of all, the fact that your AD approved an update to your WG
charter means nothing - because you don't HAVE an approved WG charter in
the first place. We are still waiting for your Area Director to perform a
proper disposition to the charter RIDs that were levied against all SLS
Area WGs in June.<br><br>
Even if the charter *was* approved, modifying it to add
indefinite-deliverable, indefinite-schedule, indefinite-resource
statements like -<br>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica" color="#FF0000">"This WG is also
involved in maintaining and upgrading existing CCSDS link layer protocol
recommendations."<br>
</font> - and - <br>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica" color="#FF0000">"Provide the
disposition of all RIDs written against CCSDS Link Layer Protocol
documents and associated documents that have become at least Red books
(have been out for agency review at least once)."<br>
</font><b> - </b>isn't going to fly through the CESG, because your
friendly Chairman is not going to approve those kinds of blank-check,
proposals. You and your AD can appeal that position to the CMC if you
want to, but you probably aren't going to have much luck since this was
exactly the sort of "standing army" approach that the
Restructuring was supposed to eliminate.<br><br>
As Tom has told you, there is no such thing as a "RID against a Blue
Book" because a Blue Book is not (and never has been) a reviewable
item. If liens are identified against an existing Blue Book then the
update to that Blue Book is a brand new work item and the process is - as
I explained this morning - quite clear:<br><br>
a. Have someone write up the concerns as a Concept Paper.<br>
b. Get a BOF chartered to see if others agree that they are serious
enough<br>
to warrant a Blue Book update. If there is sufficient Agency
consensus,<br>
then a WG charter should be drafted to define how to perform
the work.<br>
c. Have the BOF present the draft WG charter and supporting rationale
(the<br>
Concept papers) to the AD for approval. Once again, to be
approved a WG charter<br>
must have specific deliverables, specific schedules and
specific resource estimates.<br>
It should be a stand-alone group, dedicated to a particular
job, and should not<br>
be "piled-on" to an existing charter.<br>
d. Have the AD get the WG charter approved by the CESG.<br>
e. Have the CESG get the WG charter approved by the CMC.<br><br>
None of the above needs to take more than a few days if the need is
urgent - but it has to be done. You are already well on your way to step
c., so I would suggest that you just go ahead and follow the process as a
way to succeed. In fact, I submit that more time and energy has already
been expended arguing about the process than would have been spent just
"doing it right the first time".<br><br>
There is, of course, the separate issue of stability of Blue Books. I
presume that you are going to accompany step d. with a persuasive story
that explains why we are changing the Prox-1 Blue Book so soon after it
was originally issued? When I was a young lad like you, changing a Blue
Book was serious business.<br><br>
Best regards<br>
Adrian<br>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++<br><br>
<font color="#800080">At 01:37 PM 9/26/2003, Greg J Kazz wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>Thanks Tom for your clarity.<br>
I used the wrong word - publish.<br>
I ment to say, the rids are distributed by the secretariat to the RID
coordinator of the cognizant working group.<br>
Greg</font><br>
<font color="#0000FF">At 9/26/2003 01:13 PM, T. Gannett wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>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 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.<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>
</font><font color="#FF0000"><br>
</font><font color="#800080">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>
</font><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><font color="#000080">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><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</font><font color="#800080"><br>
Greg J Kazz <greg.j.kazz@jpl.nasa.gov> on 09/24/2003 04:50:27
PM<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>
Subject: Re: Review of new Space Link Protocols WG Charter<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>
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</font></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></html>
--=====================_377368343==_.ALT--