[CESG] RE: "Recommended Standard" or "Standard"

Kearney, Mike W. (MSFC-EO01) mike.kearney at nasa.gov
Thu Jul 28 14:56:42 EDT 2011

You're right, Tom.  My memory was that we required "Recommended Standard" because simply "Standard" carried the weight of a "Required" compliance to the standard which invoked the more political requirements of international agreements (State department approval, etc.).  

I think I should handle that with a direct dialogue with Martin.  

If someone has a historical track record that would help substantiate the theory above, I would appreciate hearing from you.  I will address Martin next week.   

   -=- Mike

Mike Kearney

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Gannett [mailto:tomg at aiaa.org] 
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 1:11 PM
To: Kearney, Mike W. (MSFC-EO01)
Cc: CCSDS at esa-sf1.esa.gmessaging.net; Steering Group - CESG Exec; Nestor.Peccia at esa.int; adrian.j.hooke at jpl.nasa.gov
Subject: RE: [CESG] PICS text in A02.1-Y-2.1d


 From the discussion this morning is appears that we may be very near 
to being able to publish the document, but there remains one 
problematic comment from DLR that needs an explicit response from the CMC:

"DLR proposes to change recommended standards into standards, because 
DLR cannot see any additional value from the word recommended and in 
the end on the ISO level  we will have a standard."

I believe a CMC poll is necessary to get consensus on the proposed 
change, since at one time there was strong objection from certain 
agencies to referring to CCSDS Blue Books as actual standards.

I should point out that, as a practical matter, changing the term 
would not be a simple thing, since it would involve changing a 
massive number of templates, etc., in which the term is hard 
coded.  On the other hand I personally feel that, if we can get 
everyone to agree, it would be a positive change.


Thomas Gannett
+1 410 793 7190

More information about the CESG mailing list