[CESG] RE: Opening Plenary slides / SEA objectives or reporting?

[Shames, Peter M (313B)]

The slide stands as it is.  We always report status on all WGs, even those that do not meet, if there is still on-going work.

Peter



From: Gian Paolo Calzolari <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int<mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 07:05:13 -0700
To: Mike Kearney <Mike.Kearney at nasa.gov<mailto:Mike.Kearney at nasa.gov>>
Cc: Nestor Peccia <Nestor.Peccia at esa.int<mailto:Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>>, "cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>" <cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>>, CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>>
Subject: RE: [CESG] RE: Opening Plenary slides / SEA objectives or reporting?


Just a comment (mainly) for Peter, but for which everybody's opinion may be valuable..


I find the SEA slide somehow conflicting with the title.
If only meeting objective should be reported, the slide should only mention the Security WG (no other SEA WG meets in Berlin)
All the rest is SEA reporting, not "meeting objectives".

Note that I am not opposing to include that reporting in the slide, but it may be such difference should be somehow remarked.

Sorry for adding entropy  :o)

Gian Paolo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20110512/6f5ae875/attachment.html