[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

[Shames, Peter M (313B)]

Tom,

You Are right.  I got hung up on the duplicated statements about parallel ISO and agency reviews and missed the recursive Nestor AD requesting Nestor (CESG Chair) for a CESG poll.

My comments about the document still stand.

Peter



From: Tom Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net<mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>>
Date: Monday, July 22, 2013 8:28 AM
To: Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>>, Nestor Peccia <Nestor.Peccia at esa.int<mailto:Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>>, Tom Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net<mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>>
Cc: CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg 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-rac at mailman.ccsds.org>>
Subject: Re: [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

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 <Nestor.Peccia at esa.int<mailto:Nestor.Peccia at esa.int> >
Date: Monday, July 22, 2013 3:27 AM
To: CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg 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-rac at mailman.ccsds.org>>, "moims at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:moims at mailman.ccsds.org> " <moims at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:moims at mailman.ccsds.org> >, Tom Gannett <tomg at aiaa.org<mailto: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/a3f1b92f/attachment.html