[CESG] Re: PICS resolution

[Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int]

Dear CESG colleagues,
        here are a few comments to Peter's input.

Peter states:   Prior to the first Red Book review, each draft standard 
shall have a Protocol Implementation Conformance Specification (PICS) 
Pro-Forma section provided.
Of course it would be very good practice to provide PICS for the first 
Agency review.
However we know that sometimes there is the need or the wish from some 
working groups to go for the first Agency Review already knowing that this 
will not be the final one. 
Without disputing on the reasons for this approach, I think that the only 
real requirement should be to have PICS being part of the last Agency 
Review before publication.

Peter states:   The PICS Pro Forma is to provide a statement of what 
conformance to the specification means and to embody this as an Annex in 
the standard.
It should state ?normative annex?.

Peter states:   The PICS Pro Forma is required for all CCSDS standards 
track documents, whether a protocol, pre se, or some other normative 
specification, such as a profile, abstract syntax, encoding rule or 
information object specification.
The statement above is clearly in conflict with CMC Resolution 
CMC-R-2010-06-010 (see at the bottom of this mail) limiting the obligation 
for PICS only to Blue Books including a protocol. IMO, the CMC resolution 
shall be fully endorsed by CESG with
1.      Hints to decide when it shall be considered that a Blue Book is 
including a protocol.
2.      Invitation (not command) to include PICS whenever possible also in 
Blue Books not including a protocol.

Peter states:   The primary purpose of the PICS Pro Forma is to clearly 
define what elements within the standard are required and which are 
optional.
I cannot share this statement. The mandatory and optional elements of a 
standard are clearly defined using the CCSDS editorial rules; e.g. 
a)      the words ?shall? and ?must? imply a binding and verifiable 
specification;
b)      the word ?should? implies an optional, but desirable, 
specification;
c)      the word ?may? implies an optional specification;
d)      the words ?is?, ?are?, and ?will? imply statements of fact.
The annex we want to add to CCSDS documents is a template to be filled by 
implementers to clearly document which options are provided within a 
specific product.

Just as final remarks, I share Chris' concern about resources.

That's all for the time being.

I wish you all a nice week and and an happy Easter break

Gian Paolo
---------------------------------------
As per Tom Gannett?s mail there is a CMC resolution pending on PICS:

FWI:  The Fall 2008 resolution was not implemented because it was 
problematic: the "P" in PICS stands for Protocol, and trying to force 
conformance statements for non-protocols into the PICS mold ranges from 
difficult to impossible.  At the June 2010 Brazil meeting the requirement 
was narrowed to apply only to Blue Books defining protocols, and the 
Brazil resolution effectively supersedes the earlier resolution:

CMC-R-2010-06-010: CMC resolves that if a Blue Book includes a protocol it 
shall include PICS Proforma as a normative annex.

The need for some sort of conformance statements for non-protocols was 
acknowledged, but they may need to be handled on a case-by-case basis. 
Currently a formal requirement for non-protocol conformance statements 
does not really exist.





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20110415/b8bf4f07/attachment.htm