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

Hooke, Adrian J (9000) adrian.j.hooke at jpl.nasa.gov
Fri Jul 29 14:19:52 EDT 2011

I think that you guys may be playing with fire. Standards are developed by accredited Standards Development Organizations (SDOs). Right now we feed our CCSDS Recommended Standards to other SDOs (e.g., ECSS and ISO), who adopt them as standards. If we set ourselves up as a Standards Development Organization, are ESA and CNES willing to pay for the process of becoming accredited by some other organization? NASA sure doesn't: we are investing 25% of our budget in running the Secretariat, which handles our relationship with other SDOs.

I believe that this falls into the category of "if it ain't broke, why fix it". What exactly is broken here, and is it serious enough to potentially uproot CCSDS and SC13 chartering issues which have been settled and working smoothly for almost 30 years?


From: cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org [mailto:cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] On Behalf Of Moury Gilles
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 11:35 AM
To: Chris.Taylor at esa.int; Kearney, Mike W. (MSFC-EO01)
Cc: Thomas Gannett; CCSDS at esa-sf1.esa.gmessaging.net; Nestor.Peccia at esa.int; Steering Group - CESG Exec
Subject: RE: [CESG] RE: "Recommended Standard" or "Standard"

Same for CNES : CCSDS standards are usually made directly applicable to projects (with an applicability matrix if needed). As Chris wrote, we use to rely on ESA-PSS standards which actually reformulated/repackaged CCSDS recommendations. It is no more the case. The term "recommended" is both historical and maybe still political because it implies a lower level of commitment of CCSDS member agencies to actually apply those standards to their projects.

 Gilles MOURY
CNES Toulouse

De : cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org [mailto:cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] De la part de Chris.Taylor at esa.int
Envoyé : vendredi 29 juillet 2011 16:52
À : Kearney, Mike W. (MSFC-EO01)
Cc : Thomas Gannett; CCSDS at esa-sf1.esa.gmessaging.net; Steering Group - CESG Exec; Nestor.Peccia at esa.int
Objet : Re: [CESG] RE: "Recommended Standard" or "Standard"
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.

Sent from my iPad

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



-----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<mailto:CCSDS at esa-sf1.esa.gmessaging.net>; Steering Group - CESG Exec; Nestor.Peccia at esa.int<mailto:Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>; adrian.j.hooke at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto: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


CESG mailing list

CESG at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:CESG at mailman.ccsds.org>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20110729/6a2c84ab/attachment.htm

More information about the CESG mailing list