[CESG] SLS Reply to PCOM WG Disapproval

[Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int]

Dear All,
        please find here a joint reply from SLS AD+DAD after the PCOM WG 
disapproval (attached at the end of this mail).
As no negative CESG comment was risen in previous CESG Meetings and as 
such this negative vote appears to us very surprise. 
The negative remarks are addressed here below.

CSS AD  Barkley Erik    DISAPPROVE WITH COMMENT (state detailed reasons 
for disapproval) 
The SIG appears to be doing good work, but the case to establish a WG for 
the purposes of producing a single green book seems to be contrary to the 
CCSDS mission of producing implementable recommendations. 
SLS Reply:      PCOM would be aligned to other WG's that were chartered to 
produce only Green Books. One example is the Next Generation Uplink 
Working Group chaired by Greg Kazz (NASA/JPL) that was chartered for 
writing a Green Book capturing mission profiles and corresponding user 
requirements for NGU. In this respect PCOM does not differ from NGU; i.e. 
PCOM green book would capture mission profiles, user requirements and 
potential solutions .

Its seems that this information can be captured as a yellow book if needed 
be as part SLS Area normal business to help prioritize needs for updates, 
for example as cited in the proposed charter, to proximity 1. 
SLS Reply:      In the past we did capture some reporting in yellow books. 
However this option has been discontinued and nowadays the contents of 
yellow books are strictly limited to document either the test plans and 
test reports produced in support of CCSDS Blue Book and Orange Book 
interoperability testing or CCSDS internal processes, procedures, and 
controlling guidelines. Therefore such a recommendation cannot be taken.
In general. the whole SLS idea for the creation of the WG was to structure 
the work rather than simply "collating" he uncoordinated inputs received 
in the SIG.

It strikes this AD that the SIG is doing good SIG work and should remain 
as a SIG to help inform the program of work for the existing WGs in the 
SLS area, and that a WG to develop a single green book for this 
information is not truly warranted. 
SLS Reply:      As mentioned. the whole SLS idea for the creation of the 
WG was to structure the work rather than "collating" the uncoordinated 
inputs received in the SIG.
 
SEA AD  Shames Peter    DISAPPROVE WITH COMMENT (state detailed reasons 
for disapproval) 
It is not at all clear why there should be a separate WG for PlaCom from 
the existing SLS working groups dealing with link layer and C&S. 
Why isn't this specific niche domain just taken up as a new work item in 
one or more existing WGs.
SLS Reply:      The WG would follow the SIG Work. Similarly to what was 
already done within the NGU WG, the PCOM WG would prepare a Green Book 
providing mission profiles and corresponding user requirements starting 
from the physical layer upward. SFCG recommendation would also be taken 
into account. Once this PCOM green book is finished, new work items will 
eventually be assigned to RF&Mod, Channel coding & Synchronization, Space 
Link Protocols WG as needed.
Given constrained resources for CCSDS across all agencies it is hard to 
see how standing up a new WG cannot impact existing effort in other 
existing WGs.
SLS Reply:      It was understood that CESG vote should not consider 
resource issues. Moreover CNES proposes to fund the work by providing 
resources for the designated Book Editor and WG Chair.

Taking into account the explanations given above, SLS Area would invite 
CESG to reconsider the issue towards a positive vote for the creation of 
the PCOM WG.
If this is not possible rapidly, the matter should be addressed at CESG 
mid term telecon on 18 September

Best regards

Gian Paolo & Gilles
----- Forwarded by Gian Paolo Calzolari/esoc/ESA on 02/08/2013 16:10 -----

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2013-07-001 Approval for the Creation 
of the SLS Planetary Communications Working Group
Results of CESG poll beginning 1 July 2013 and ending 26 July 2013:

                  Abstain:  0 (0%)
  Approve Unconditionally:  3 (60%) (Peccia, Calzolari, Moury)
  Approve with Conditions:  0 (0%)
  Disapprove with Comment:  2 (40%) (Shames, Barkley)

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

      Peter Shames (Disapprove with Comment):  It is not at all clear 
why there should be a separate WG for PlaCom from the existing SLS 
working groups dealing with link layer and C&S.  Why isn't this 
specific niche domain just taken up as a new work item in one or more 
existing WGs.

Given constrained resources for CCSDS across all agencies it is hard 
to see how standing up a new WG cannot impact existing effort in 
other existing WGs.

      Erik Barkley (Disapprove with Comment):  The SIG appears to be 
doing good work, but the case to establish a WG for the purposes of 
producing a single green book seems to be contrary to the CCSDS 
mission of producing implementable recommendations.  Its seems that 
this information can be captured as a yellow book if needed be as 
part SLS Area normal business to help prioritize needs for updates, 
for example as cited in the proposed charter, to proximity 1.    It 
strikes this AD that the SIG is doing good SIG work and should remain 
as a SIG to help inform the program of work for the existing WGs in 
the SLS area, and that a WG to develop a single green book for this 
information is not truly warranted.

Total Respondents:  5

No response was received from the following Area(s):

      SOIS
      SIS

SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Disapproved
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            No Action

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee or addressees only. The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in whole or in part) of its content is not permitted. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the sender.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20130802/6007ac4b/attachment.html