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

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

Ø  Peter reacted to the ESA vote by producing an updated YB doc specifying PICS as mandatory for communication protocols and suggesting that the decision on info objects, service, etc. specs is deferred.

As you saw in Peter's separate note, what the draft document says is:


Ø  The decision of requiring an ICS definition for information object standards (i.e., data exchange specs like TDM or XFDU), service specifications, coding or modulation specifications, and compression specifications has been deferred for now.

What he defers is the decision of *requiring* an ICS for other documents.  He does not defer *allowing* an ICS for other documents.  Since the CMC did not *disallow* PICS-Proforma for other-than-protocols, then the CMC resolution and the procedures *allow* it.

I understand that it contradicts your "last two sentences".  I am sorry about that.  But I don't think that changes the conclusion.

I understand there are broader concerns about XTCE.  I believe the proposed XTCE PICS-Proforma solves the biggest problems.  And I think we can add a PICS annex to the XTCE BB.  Setting aside the question about whether or not it is allowed by the procedures, it's not clear why you think a PICS-Proforma XTCE is a bad idea.

I will have some off-line discussions with Peter.  It looks like your other discussions with Peter are resolved, so that's great.  On this topic, we will let you know the results of the coordination between me and Peter next week.

Thanks,

   -=- 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 11:17 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

Peter will prepare some material for discussion at the next CESG on ICS for info objects, service, code, modulation and compression specs. It could be that a PICS is not appropriate, and an ICS is a better solution.

I believe CMC shall first solve the mess on the last poll, and not open a new poll

CMC attached to the poll an inadequate YB document, specifying that PICS were mandatory for every BB

Peter reacted to the ESA vote by producing an updated YB doc specifying PICS as mandatory for communication protocols and suggesting that the decision on info objects, service, etc. specs is deferred. I suggested 2 minor clarifications to that YB, such that is fine for publication.

You and Adrian are now suggesting to give the opportunity to any WG (if wished) to produce a PICS for a BB. There is no doc showing that and contradicts my 2 last sentences.


wrt to XTCE

XTCE potential PICS has also problems with the OMG standard. Do not forget that CCSDS rubberstamped the OMG standard. We can not add now a PICS as Annex to the BB. The MB solution was also not appealing.

ciao
nestor
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20110728/1b5117e1/attachment.htm