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

[Kearney, Mike W. (MSFC-EO01)]

This is a different question/topic from Adrian's reply earlier.

Adrian's comments, Nestor's comments, and the text of the book say that Protocols are required to have a PICS-Proforma.  It *does not say* that other CCSDS documents are *not allowed* to have PICS-Proforma.  The intention  of the CMC resolution was that, as a minimum, Protocols require PICS-Proforma.  By not addressing non-Protocols, that means that PICS-Proforma are optional for them.  They are not outlawed.

However, you and Mario (as I understand it) have told the XTCE workers that they are not allowed to have a PICS-Proforma, even though their WG level assessment is that they really need a PICS-Proforma to fix the problem they have with options in the OMG's XTCE document.

I think that's wrong.  If a Working Group can use PICS-Proforma as an advantage in their documents, they should be allowed to use it.  Regardless of protocol or book color.  The only rule is that Protocols absolutely require PICS-Proforma.  For other documents it should be optional.  And since the text of the document doesn't address PICS-Proforma for non-protocols, I think that policy is supported by the procedures.


Ø  we deferred the decision to use ICS (not PICS) until Boulder because more analysis is needed.

I don't think XTCE can wait until Boulder, stopping their work until then.  The option for non-Protocol PICS-Proforma needs to be agreed to by email or at the latest in a CESG telecon before Boulder.  And I think the existing procedures draft allows it, so why is further analysis required?

   -=- Mike

Mike Kearney
NASA MSFC EO-01
256-544-2029


From: Nestor.Peccia at esa.int [mailto:Nestor.Peccia at esa.int]
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 3:06 AM
To: Shames, Peter M
Cc: Hooke, Adrian J (9000); CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec; cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org; Kearney, Mike W. (MSFC-EO01); Tom Gannett
Subject: Re: [CESG] PICS text in A02.1-Y-2.1d


Peter

ESA has analyzed the modifications proposed by you, and has the following comments

Annex B.2.1, a, last paragraph.
Blue Books defining protocols must include a Protocol Implementation Conformance Statement (PICS) proforma as a normative annex
To be replaced by
Blue Books defining communications protocols must include a Protocol Implementation Conformance Statement (PICS) proforma as a normative annex

Annex F, A.1 2nd paragraph
ESA's comment is on the words "terse style" to document what is mandatory and what is optional.
CCSDS Publication Manual is clear on that
The following conventions apply for the normative specifications in this Recommended Standard:
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.
NOTE - These conventions do not imply constraints on diction in text that is clearly informative in nature.
We suggest to reference the Publication Manual for mandatory / optional specs instead to leave to every book-captain his/her  free interpretation of what "terse style" means

Let us know your views. Perhaps we can save the telecon planned for next week.

ciao
nestor
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20110728/050f5232/attachment.htm