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

[Moury Gilles]

For sure, nothing is broken there. If there are concerns about this terminology change, we should stay as is.
 

Gilles MOURY 
CNES Toulouse 

 

________________________________

De : Hooke, Adrian J (9000) [mailto:adrian.j.hooke at jpl.nasa.gov] 
Envoyé : vendredi 29 juillet 2011 20:20
À : Moury Gilles; Chris.Taylor at esa.int
Cc : Steering Group - CESG Exec
Objet : RE: [CESG] RE: "Recommended Standard" or "Standard"



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?

 

///adrian

 

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.

 

Regards,

Gilles

 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. 

//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/20110730/f91f9596/attachment.htm