[CESG] Conclusion on CSA "singleton" vs "compound" requirement statements

[Tai, Wallace S (9000)]

Peter or Erik,

One of you may want to inform Yamada-san of this decision as he was the one suggesting the "compound" style.

Wallace

From: <Barkley>, "Erik J (3970)" <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Date: Monday, April 7, 2014 3:37 AM
To: "Nestor.Peccia at esa.int<mailto:Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>" <Nestor.Peccia at esa.int<mailto:Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>>, "Shames, Peter M (312G)" <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Cc: Mike Kearney <Mike.Kearney at nasa.gov<mailto:Mike.Kearney at nasa.gov>>, "CESG -- CCSDS-Engineering Steering Group (cesg at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>) (cesg at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>)" <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>>
Subject: [CESG] Conclusion on CSA "singleton" vs "compound" requirement statements

Nestor, Peter,

Just to document my understanding of the discussion today at the CMC/CESG meeting, we concluded by agreeing to advance the CSA MB with the current form of “singleton” requirements.

Best regards,

-Erik
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20140407/e997dfd1/attachment.htm