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

[Hooke, Adrian J (9000)]

The key here is that CCSDS was set up in 1982 as a Consultative Committee, not as a treaty-bound standards organization. It was patterned in after the then-active CCITT/CCIR, who issued "recommendations":



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITU-T

"The international standards that are produced ...  are referred to as "Recommendations" (with the word ordinarily capitalized to distinguish its meaning from the ordinary sense of the word "recommendation"), as they become mandatory only when adopted as part of a national law."



CCSDS recommendations become standards only when they are adopted internationally, nationally or locally by an accredited standards development organization; this is reflected in the boilerplate of all CCSDS Recommended Standards, and the fact that CCSDS exists only by a charter agreement among the agencies, with no legally-binding authority.



The DLR proposal seems highly disruptive and would raise basic chartering issues, which would be a waste of time. What is broken here, and why do we need to spend resources and take big organizational risks in fixing it?



///adrian



-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Gannett [mailto:tomg at aiaa.org]
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 2:11 PM
To: Kearney, Mike W. (MSFC-EO01)
Cc: CCSDS at esa-sf1.esa.gmessaging.net; Steering Group - CESG Exec; Nestor.Peccia at esa.int; Hooke, Adrian J (9000)
Subject: RE: [CESG] PICS text in A02.1-Y-2.1d



Mike:



>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.



Tom











Thomas Gannett

+1 410 793 7190


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20110728/bd607ba6/attachment.htm