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

[Chris.Taylor at esa.int]

Chaps this goes back to the days where esa was preparing its own standard based on ccsds but released under our pss series. These days have gone and where possible we apply ccsds recs as is. In this respect no problem to change to "standard" rather than recommended. 
//ct


Sent from my iPad

On 28 Jul 2011, at 20:57, "Kearney, Mike W. (MSFC-EO01)" <mike.kearney at nasa.gov> wrote:

> 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
> NASA MSFC EO-01
> 256-544-2029
> 
> 
> 
> -----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
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CESG mailing list
> CESG at mailman.ccsds.org
> http://mailman.ccsds.org/mailman/listinfo/cesg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20110729/c87b8d10/attachment.html