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

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

Ø  CESG only approved the use of PICS for comms protocols

That statement does not mean to me that PICS-Proforma are not allowed for others.  There are many possible documentation techniques and features.  If management does not explicitly require or exclude something, then it is OK for a WG to use whatever works best for their objectives.

It appears that the CMC needs to be more clear so that the CESG will understand.  I can clarify this for the CESG by asking for a CMC poll on making PICS-Proforma optional for non-Protocols.  Would that help?


Ø  The CESG discussions during last meeting were not favouring the use of PICS for XTCE. It was very complicated and cumbersome (and more than 100 pages long)

If the problem with the XTCE PICS is that it was a poor quality PICS, that is a different problem, and entirely within the realm of the CESG to decide on.  In that case, the instructions to the WG should be to fix their PICS-Proforma with a correct one.  Not "PICS-Proforma are not allowed for you".

Final question:  Shall I ask for a CMC Poll to clarify whether the CMC resolution to require PICS-Proforma for protocols was also intended to outlaw PICS-Proforma for non-Protocols?

If such a poll is needed, we should do it before the next CESG telecon.

   -=- 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 10:36 AM
To: Kearney, Mike W. (MSFC-EO01)
Cc: Hooke, Adrian J (9000); CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec; cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org; Shames, Peter M; Tom Gannett
Subject: RE: [CESG] PICS text in A02.1-Y-2.1d


Mike

The CESG discussions during last meeting were not favouring the use of PICS for XTCE. It was very complicated and cumbersome (and more than 100 pages long)

In addition the approach with the XTCE books presented by MOIMS was criticised.

CESG only approved the use of PICS for comms protocols

CMC (Secretariat and Chair) authorised (after the Berlin meeting) to issue a poll with a Procedures YB containing many inconsistencies wrt PICS (and misaligned with Peter Shames' RIDs discussed / agreed at the last CESG meeting).
The attached poll doc practically required PICS for every BB,

This is why ESA approved with conditions.

I suggest that somebody updates the YB according to the conditions set at the poll, and we then discuss. Otherwise this is going towards a redherring

 ciao
nestor
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20110728/80c1ea4a/attachment.htm