[CESG] Updates to ICS Pro Forma presentations

[Shames, Peter M (313B)]

Hi Nestor,

Thanks for the quick reply.  I think we are pretty much on the same page, but do want to clarify one or two things.  See questions in-line.

Thanks, Peter



From: Nestor Peccia <Nestor.Peccia at esa.int<mailto:Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 08:47:35 -0800
To: Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Cc: CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>>, "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>>
Subject: Re: [CESG] Updates to ICS Pro Forma presentations

Peter
my views
ciao
nestor

>> In particular, I know we agreed to apply this only to new projects, but it was not clear to me if that applied only to projects that start after this date, or if it applies to projects that
>> are now only in White Paper (draft of a draft) stage.

I would personally recommend to apply this only to Projects that start after this date, It means that even if the Project is in the CWE but no WB has been drafted, an ICS is compulsory

I'm not clear what you are saying here.  The first part says "I would personally recommend to apply this only to Projects that start after this date,".  But then the second part says "It means that even if the Project is in the CWE but no WB has been drafted, an ICS is compulsory".

I take this to mean that if a project is in the CWE, but there is no White Book, then the ICS is required.  This does mean that if a WG has started and they only have a White Paper that an ICS is mandatory.  However, if they have drafted a White Book, I.e. A draft red Book, then this is no longer the case.

I think that this is clear enough, but do want to acknowledge that we may have new WGs, or new projects in a WG, that is in White Book form but at a low level of maturity.  If a project still has a year or more to go before it can hope to be standardized I would think that the cost / schedule impact of adding an ICS is low and that the benefit is relatively high.

Would you all agree?


>> we need to notify the CCSDS WG members
My personal opinion is that CESG Chairs have to inform the CESG-aLL about the agreement

Yes.  This sounds like a perfect way to inform the whole of the CCSDS leadership team.

>> but I seem to recall some discussion about Pink Sheets.  Does anyone have notes (or opinions) about this?
I remembered that we discuss the following
- ICS does not apply to corrigendums, pink sheets,

That is what I recall as well.  But here too I would ask that we clarify that corrigenda and Pink Sheets are for relatively minor updates.   If a book undergoes enough of a revision to be issued as a new version I think we should consider adding an ICS, for exactly the same cost / benefit reasons stated earlier.  We could state in eithr case that a waiver may be requested, but I think the basic policy should be to add the ICS in this case.

Can we agree?

Regards, Peter







-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20111108/0cff2733/attachment.htm