[Cesg-all] Result of CESG poll closing 31 January 2011

[Shames, Peter M (313B)]

 As far as my SEA comments are concerned, having you take this on as an editorial matter is perfect.  Conditions satisfied.  All ahead full.

Peter


From: Tom Gannett <tomg at aiaa.org<mailto:tomg at aiaa.org>>
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 10:33:40 -0800
To: Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Cc: Adrian Hooke <Adrian.J.Hooke at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:Adrian.J.Hooke at jpl.nasa.gov>>, "sls-rfm at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:sls-rfm at mailman.ccsds.org>" <sls-rfm at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:sls-rfm at mailman.ccsds.org>>, CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG All <cesg-all at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg-all at mailman.ccsds.org>>
Subject: Re: [Cesg-all] Result of CESG poll closing 31 January 2011

Peter:

As I stated in my original response to your comment, I fully intend to make the change throughout the document prior to its next release.

Beyond that, this really is a wholly stylistic matter entirely within the purview of the Secretariat, and it seems to me it is not something that merits elevation to an ad-infinitum e-mail discussion among Area Directors and WG Chairs (unless, of course, all technical issues have now been resolved and there's nothing else to discuss).

Tom

On 2/3/11 12:56 PM, Shames, Peter M (313B) wrote:
 By taking this approach we are, however, leaving the document in a peculiar, and inconsistent, state.  If they are going to change any text in the document use Mb/s then I suggest that they adopt it throughout.  Since, in this case, that means one other editorial change it should be a simple matter for the Secretariat to also effect that.

Peter


From: Tom Gannett <tomg at aiaa.org<mailto:tomg at aiaa.org>>
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 06:46:11 -0800
To: Adrian Hooke <Adrian.J.Hooke at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:Adrian.J.Hooke at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Cc: "sls-rfm at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:sls-rfm at mailman.ccsds.org>" <sls-rfm at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:sls-rfm at mailman.ccsds.org>>, CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG All <cesg-all at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg-all at mailman.ccsds.org>>
Subject: Re: [Cesg-all] Result of CESG poll closing 31 January 2011

The Publications Manual requires SI notation.  In the case of the RF&Mod book, which was developed prior to adoption of the Publication Manual, it has been the practice at the Secretariat, whenever the book is updated, to attempt to bring it closer to Publications Manual requirements without expending significant resources to do so.

In the case of the current update, there was a notation (Mbps) that was not consistent with SI notation, and it was thus changed by the Secretariat.

As noted editorially in the poll results, changes made for compliance with CCSDS Publications Manual requirements are not subject to review;  i.e., comments concerning such changes will be ignored.

On 2/3/11 9:29 AM, Hooke, Adrian J (9000) wrote:
In view of these conflicts, we should possibly adopt a neutral standard? --

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FFF_system

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg-all/attachments/20110203/25e3db1d/attachment.htm