[CESG] FW: [Secretariat] [CMC Alert] Question about CCSDS 876.1-R-1 & 876.0-R-1

[Shames, Peter M (312B)]

Dear Nestor,

The CCSDS Procedures require that all of our documents are properly categorized based upon the nature of the document, I.e. what it contains and how it is defined.  I will point out that we have had a number of instances in the past, expecially since we re-organized and added the Magenta and Orange Book types, where documents that were once identified as Blue were re-categorized as Magenta because of their actual definitions and contents.  I am particularly thinking of the Reference Model for an Open Archival Information System (OAIS), the Producer-Archive Interface Methodology Abstract Standard, and the Mission Operations Reference Model.  There are other documents, like Cross Support Reference Model—Part 1: Space Link Extension Services, which was originally defined as a Blue Book, but is really Magenta in nature.  It has not been updated since 2005, and if or when it is it should change color to Magenta.

Unfortunately this whole Blue / Magenta distinction is not always clear to working groups, especially to those who do not have a long history in CCSDS or where the subject matter of the standard is a little "border-line".  I just went back and re-read the draft spec, which I had reviewed carefully at the time it went through the CESG review.  I did identify a number of issues at that time, but none had to do with the characterization of the document, as written, as a Magenta Book.  After reviewing it again, I still believe that it's essential nature is that of a Magenta Book and I think it should be published as such.

To be frank, if there is pressure to re-formulate this as a Blue Book, because it was incorrectly listed as a Blue Book in the project framework, then I think what you are really asking for is a totally different book, not just a change of the "boiler-plate" text.   It does not meet, given its present contents, the criteria for a Blue Book:

CCSDS Recommended Standards (Blue Books) define specific interfaces, technical capabilities, or protocols, or provide prescriptive and/or normative definitions of interfaces, protocols, or other controlling standards such as encoding approaches. Recommended Standards must be complete, unambiguous and at a sufficient level of technical detail that they can be directly implemented and used for space-mission interoperability and cross support.

It does, however, meet the criteria for a Magenta Book:

CCSDS Recommended Practices (Magenta Books) are the consensus results of CCSDS community deliberations and provide a way to capture “best” or “state-of- the-art” approaches for applying or using standards or for documenting reference architectures and other formal specifications. Magenta Books may document guidelines for standardized processes or procedures for accomplishing tasks. They may document reference models or reference architectures to assist in the design, use, description, or selection of one or more standards. Practices say, “Here is how the community recommends that one should carry out or describe this particular kind of operation at present, or how the community recommends that it should be carried out in the future.”

My own assessment is that the SOIS Dictionary of Terms, CCSDS 876.1-R-1, is a Magenta Book and that it should be published as such.  We can, and should, change the Project Framework to align with this reality rather than creating an entirely new book to align with what is clearly a mistaken characterization of the nature of this document in the framework.

Best regards, Peter




From: <cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>> on behalf of Nestor Peccia <Nestor.Peccia at esa.int<mailto:Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>>
Date: Friday, July 24, 2015 at 10:50 AM
To: Tom Gannett <tomg at aiaa.org<mailto:tomg at aiaa.org>>
Cc: Nick Tongson <nickt at aiaa.org<mailto:nickt at aiaa.org>>, "cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>" <cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>>, Ramon Krosley <r.krosley at andropogon.org<mailto:r.krosley at andropogon.org>>, Richard Melvin <Richard.Melvin at scisys.co.uk<mailto:Richard.Melvin at scisys.co.uk>>, CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>>, Jonathan Wilmot <jonathan.j.wilmot at nasa.gov<mailto:jonathan.j.wilmot at nasa.gov>>
Subject: Re: [CESG] FW: [Secretariat] [CMC Alert] Question about CCSDS 876.1-R-1 & 876.0-R-1

Dear Tom,

Rules have to be applied in the same way to all WGs, Areas and polls.

The referred book (SOIS Dictionary of Tems) , a BLUE BOOK, is an "APPROVED" CWE Project,

The Secretariat who is responsible for raising CESG and CMC polls has created TWO  "INVALID" polls in sequence for a non existing book. (the SOIS Dictionary of terms MB)

The matter of urgency is doubtful,  with CESG conditions raised in April 2015, i.e. 3 months ago and a CMC poll started on 13th July.

As CESG chair. I fully disagree with your proposal.

The WG needs to re-deliver a draft in accordance with the CWE Approved Project, i.e. a BB.

The current CMC poll has to be stopped, and the CESG poll has to be reissued, once the doc is mature as a future BB

I can imagine that any other draft BB (without an ICS) going through a CESG poll , would have got a condition for the lack of an ICS

Last but not least, we need to consider to change the YB, to save us from the Secretariat issuing invalid polls.

ciao
nestor


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/20150724/9b8031e7/attachment.html>