[CESG] Draft of revised Org & Proc Concept paper section
/ lifetime of only nine months? etc
Thomas Gannett
tomg at aiaa.org
Wed Nov 6 09:35:17 EST 2013
Gian Paolo:
Concerning the concept paper requirement, on exactly two occasions
since the reorganization, concept papers have been submitted and
numbers have been assigned. One of those concept papers was updated
after its expiration and reposted.
The requirement in the Org&Procs book was something Adrian wanted to
impose in order to make CCSDS look more like IETF (and ISO, for that
matter). In practice it has never caught on, and since the
Secretariat has little interaction with WGs and basically no
interaction with BOFs, I don't know who is supposed to police such a
requirement if not the Area Directors (who are surprised that such a
requirement might exist).
There have never been any formatting rules specific to concept
papers, by the way, but the Publications Manual does state that is to
be used for all CCSDS publications.
Beyond that, Annex B does not actually use normative language, and
therefore it is difficult to construe it to be normative. Thus we
have what appears to be an informative annex informing us about
something that appears not to exist, and there are no actual
requirements in the book to bring Adrian's vision for concept papers
into existence.
Tom
At 06:10 AM 11/6/2013, Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int wrote:
>Peter,
> if the common agreement is to keep in the documents errors
> just because they were not pinked, this would be fine for me as
> long as I am minority.
>It is a matter of fact that I am not aware of anybody ever asking
>(and obtaining) a reference number and an expiration date. Should we
>start doing it now?
>For the Publication Manual the present sentence is vague enough to
>be useless/painless whatever we do.
>
>About "interested parties", my proposal - sorry if this was unclear
>- was to mention either CESG or CESG-all mailing lists. Just to be less vague.
>
>I mentioned that my comments were not exahustive :o)
>However your input is generally fine for me.
>The initial list of topics would be ok.
>About Erik additions:
>- the Purpose should be inside the paper by default and I do not see
>the need for highlighting this in a dedicated bullet.
>- the "Anticipated agency adoption of any proposed standards and
>their dependencies" could be merged in a previous bullet to state
>e.g. <Requirements of prospective missions and adoption impact>
>- the same for " Operational scenarios related to any
>proposed standards to e.g. <Clear statement of expected benefits
>from what is being proposed and expected application scenarios>"
>However no real issues for them. just go ahead as the majority prefers.
>
>The text "the concept paper for a BoF " should better be "the
>concept paper produced by a BoF " to make clearer this is a BOF
>output and not a BOF input.
>
>I find the sentence below somehow convoluted with respect to the
>actual way we work. I think this is also confirmed by Erik's comment.
>"When a CCSDS concept paper has been produced by a BOF as part of
>its work in developing a WG charter, it must be updated as necessary
>(so that it has active status), and it must be submitted to the CESG
>as part of the WG approval process."
>I would rather try to reflect that:
>1) the concept paper produced by a BOF is submitted to CESG and CMC
>for WG approval
>2) IF the WG is NOT approved, the concept paper will have to be
>updated for a newer submission
>3) IF the WG is approved, the concept paper is archived (e.g. in
>CESG/CMC polls) and then the charter goes alive with changes done
>when/as required with new concept paper for e.g. adding new projects.
>Item #3 seems to be part of the following sentence, so it seems that
>the unclear sentence should state explicitly that it only applies to
>a rejected WG creation..
>I leave wording to you/Tom.
>
>Best ergards
>
>Gipppo
>
>
>
>
>From: "Shames, Peter M (312G)" <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
>To: "Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int" <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>
>Cc: Tom Gannett <tomg at aiaa.org>, "Nestor.Peccia at esa.int"
><Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>, CESG -- CCSDS-Engineering Steering Group
><cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
>Date: 05/11/2013 23:04
>Subject: Re: [CESG] Draft of revised Org & Proc Concept paper
>section / lifetime of only nine months? etc
>Sent by: cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org
>
>
>
>
>Hi Gippo,
>
>Most of what you are pointing at has been in this document for quite
>a number of years now. I suggest, in the same manner as Pink Sheet
>reviews, that we limit our comments and analysis to just those
>sections that are proposed for change. If we are really going to do
>an extensive revision of this document we can deal with anything else then.
>
>Also, I would point out that all of the specific cases you mentioned
>for "announcement of availability" are already covered by
>"interested parties", without getting into specifics. Those
>specifics, by themselves, may be too limiting.
>
>The file that recommends changes to the A20x1 text specifically
>deals with the proposed contents of the Concept Paper. You did not
>mention this, which was the purpose of this "Pink Sheet" revision,
>so I assume by your silence on this matter that you agree with what
>was proposed. Is that the case?
>
>Tom will have to address any disconnects between what is documented
>in A02x1 and the actual processes that are carried out re assignment
>of numbers .
>
>Regards, Peter
>
>
>
>
>From: Gian Paolo Calzolari
><<mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>
>Date: Tuesday, November 5, 2013 12:00 PM
>To: Peter Shames
><<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
>Cc: Tom Gannett <<mailto:tomg at aiaa.org>tomg at aiaa.org>, CCSDS
>Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec
><<mailto:cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>, Nestor
>Peccia <<mailto:Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>
>Subject: Re: [CESG] Draft of revised Org & Proc Concept paper
>section / lifetime of only nine months? etc
>
>Peter (but not only :o),
> Do we really need <lifetime of only nine months>?
>
>Moreover, was this <The Secretariat will then assign the concept
>paper a reference number and a date of expiration> ever done?
>
><will announce its availability to one or more mailing lists of
>interested parties>
>who are the interested parties?
>I think they could be CESG and affected WGs.
>For WGs we may have the originator WG (that would know about it) or
>the WG that shall do the work (if the paper comes from external
>source) or the WGs impacted by the work even if this is done in another WG.
>All in all, would it be simpler to limit distribution to CESG
>mailing list or better to CESG-all?
>
><All that is necessary is to observe some basic formatting rules
>that are established by the Secretariat in the CCSDS Publications Manual>
>Really?
>The word "concept" is not found in that manual.....
>
>More comments may follow if I find more than two minutes to dedicate
>to your input :o)
>
>Regards
>
>Gippo
>
>
>
>From: "Shames, Peter M (312G)"
><<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
>To: CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec
><<mailto:cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
>Cc: Tom Gannett
><<mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>
>Date: 03/11/2013 01:09
>Subject: [CESG] Draft of revised Org & Proc Concept paper section
>Sent by:
><mailto:cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org
>
>
>
>
>
>Dear CESG Colleagues,
>
>Attached is a draft of the proposed revisions to CCSDS Org & Proc
>concept paper section, Annex B1. This update is to be inserted
>along with a reference to Annex B1 in Sections 2.3.4 and
>6.1.1. This file contains the original text of Section B1, with the
>proposed changes shown using Track Changes so that you can see what
>has been modified. The primary changes consist of the following:
>1. Clarification of there being two general types of concept
>papers, one for WG formation and the second for specific documents or topics
>2. Addition of a bulletized list of topics common to both types
>3. Addition of an added bulletized list of topics
>specifically for BoF Concept Papers
>I will note that Gippo and Gilles should recognize some of their own
>words in these two sets of topics, since they are derived, in part,
>from their inputs to the Org & Procs doc and from their requests for
>specific topics to be addressed in the Next Generation Space Link
>Protocol concept paper. I believe, as revised, that these are
>suitable for use in all potential future standards and WG concept papers.
>
>Your feedback is solicited.
>
>Best regards, Peter
>
>[attachment "CCSDS A02x1-Y-3x1 Annex B1 CCSDS CONCEPT PAPER.docx"
>deleted by Gian Paolo Calzolari/esoc/ESA]
>_______________________________________________
>CESG mailing list
><mailto:CESG at mailman.ccsds.org>CESG at mailman.ccsds.org
>http://mailman.ccsds.org/mailman/listinfo/cesg
>
>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.
>_______________________________________________
>CESG mailing list
>CESG at mailman.ccsds.org
><http://mailman.ccsds.org/mailman/listinfo/cesg>http://mailman.ccsds.org/mailman/listinfo/cesg
>
>
>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.
Thomas Gannett
+1 443 472 0805
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20131106/8d4ee3db/attachment.htm
More information about the CESG
mailing list