[CESG] PICS text in A02.1-Y-2.1d

[Shames, Peter M (313B)]

Nestor and Adrian,

You are correct that the PICS Annex in the CMC poll document did not fully and completely address the removal of PICS for standards other than protocols.  This was rectified in the body of the document, but it appears that I missed a couple of paragraphs in the Annex.

These changes were made in the revised version that I sent out a couple of days ago.

I'd have to say that I also share your concerns about the creeping nature of PICS and associated new requirements on the working groups.  That is why I was against adopting a firm requirement on PICS in the first place.   But the CMC voted that in, and left it to the CESG to figure out how it would be described and implemented.  The CESG chair, in turn, asked Gannett and me to write this up, so it did it in a way to utilize the existing ISO requirements and process.  I am not much in favor of the broader requirement, but CMC asked for PICS and that is what ISO stated, so that is what I documented.

This has now been resolved.

Please refer to the "track changes" version I sent out and see if this scratches your itch.

Regards, Peter




From: Nestor Peccia <Nestor.Peccia at esa.int<mailto:Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>>
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 07:01:06 -0700
To: Adrian Hooke <Adrian.J.Hooke at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:Adrian.J.Hooke at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Cc: CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>>, "cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>" <cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>>, Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Subject: RE: [CESG] PICS text in A02.1-Y-2.1d


Adrian

Your mail is exactly addressing the concerns stated by many CESG members in our last meeting.

This is why it was only accepted for protocols, and the rest was deferred to Boulder for further discussion. It is not only PICS, but technology patents, Security section, etc., which are adding extra resources to every "to be written" RB

The doc attached to the CMC poll does not comply with the above mentioned approach, and this is why ESA expressedconditions when voting

ciao
nestor
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20110710/276b43b9/attachment.htm