[CESG] CESG - MOIMS Resolution Nr 2 after last Spring 2013 CCSDS meeting, Revised CCSDS 652.1 Requirements for Bodies Providing Audit and Certification of candidate Trustworthy Digital Repositories

[Thomas Gannett]

Peter:

The proposed Pink Book is a revision of a 
published CCSDS document. Therefore it must go 
through polling at the CESG level, and again 
polling at the CMC level, before it can go to 
Agency review. That is standard procedure. 
Nestor's resolution requests a CESG poll, which begins the approval process.

Tom

At 11:19 AM 7/22/2013, Shames, Peter M (313B) wrote:
>Hi Nestor,
>
>None of us need another document to review, but 
>making major changes to a draft document that 
>results in a whole Pink Book being issued and 
>then proposing that it not be re-reviewed by the 
>CESG is probably not a practice that we would 
>want to generally adopt.  I am not requesting 
>that you re-submit this for another CESG poll, 
>but do wish to make the point that this is an 
>unusual exception to our procedures.
>
>Since I had some issues with the way that somne 
>of the policies in this document were originally 
>formulated, and with the potential for COI, I am 
>very glad that the ISO stepped in.   This is a 
>much improved document as a result.  I did take 
>the time to review this final version you sent 
>out and believe that it also deals with my concerns.
>
>However, the method by which the document was 
>edited yields a rather peculiar result, i.e a 
>brand new document with a Section Heading that 
>is defined as "Reserved".  I know how the RAC 
>got there, but doubt that any uninformed readers 
>will understand and it may lead them to ask "why 
>a blank chapter in this new standard?"  It is 
>rather strking.  I have a simple fix for this 
>and that is to add a new Sec 3 titled something 
>like "Competencies for Certification Body 
>Personnel " that essentially restates in a 
>couple of sentences what is in the beginning of 
>Annex A and then points them to that normative 
>section.  It is not a big change to the 
>document, but at least has the benefit of making 
>it flow better and not looking like we screwed 
>up our numbering in this new document.
>
>I will also note that Annex A, pg 1 contains the following:
>CONTENTS OF TABLE TO BE UPDATED
>My assumption is that this table has already 
>been updated and that this line should be 
>removed.  If the table has not yet been updated 
>then I suggest that this revision be done and 
>the resolution re-submitted, along with the 
>final doc, before it is sent out for review.
>Cheers, Peter
>
>
>
>From: Nestor Peccia <<mailto:Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>
>Date: Monday, July 22, 2013 3:27 AM
>To: CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec 
><<mailto:cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>, 
>"<mailto:moims-rac at mailman.ccsds.org>moims-rac at mailman.ccsds.org" 
><<mailto:moims-rac at mailman.ccsds.org>moims-rac at mailman.ccsds.org>, 
>"<mailto:moims at mailman.ccsds.org>moims at mailman.ccsds.org" 
><<mailto:moims at mailman.ccsds.org>moims at mailman.ccsds.org>, 
>Tom Gannett <<mailto:tomg at aiaa.org>tomg at aiaa.org>
>Subject: [CESG] CESG - MOIMS Resolution Nr 2 
>after last Spring 2013 CCSDS meeting, Revised 
>CCSDS 652.1 Requirements for Bodies Providing 
>Audit and Certification of candidate Trustworthy Digital Repositories
>
>CESG Chair
>
>The following resolution has been approved by MOIMS AD.
>ciao
>nestor
>*******************************************************************
>
>MOIMS-RAC WG-R-2013-01-002, Resolution 
>recommending the issue of CCSDS 652.1 
>Requirements for Bodies Providing Audit and 
>Certification of candidate Trustworthy Digital 
>Repositoriesfor Agency and ISO Review in parallel
>
>The CCSDS Engineering Steering Group:
>
>CONSIDERING that the MOIMS RAC WG  has consulted 
>in detail with ISO CASCO and have now produced a 
>revision of the document (see attachment)  which is acceptable to them
>
>CONSIDERING that changes (see below) are too 
>extensive for a corrigendum or even Pink Sheets,
>
>CONSIDERING that the CCSDS Standards Track 
>requirements for Magenta Book review have been satisfied
>
>and AFFIRMING that the MOIMS RAC Working Group has resolved all issues
>
>and PRESUPPOSING that the Mission Operations and 
>Information Management Services Area recommends 
>that the document be submitted for Agency and ISO review in parallel
>
>APPROVES submissiom of  CCSDS 652.1 Requirements 
>for Bodies Providing Audit and Certification of 
>candidate Trustworthy Digital Repositoriesfor 
>Agency and ISO Review in parallel (after going through Secretariat editing)
>
>and
>
>RECOMMENDS that the CCSDS Engineering Steering 
>Group Chair initiates the required CESG poll for its approval
>*******************************************************************
>
>Changes are as follows
>  removed the contents of section 3 which 
> defined a special body (PTAB) – CASCO did not 
> like this. In order to keep the section numbers 
> in line with the higher level ISO 17021, we keep section 3 blank (“reserved”)
>changed section 7.2 and add a new normative 
>Annex. The annex follows the new way that ISO 
>CASCO is defining what the auditors should know. 
>Previously ISO standards talked about 
>qualifications (as did our old section 7) but 
>now the idea is to talk about competencies – which is in our new Annex A.
>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/20130722/9fd62229/attachment.htm