[CESG] SLS Area Dispositions for SEA Condition on CESG Polls CESG-P-2016-06-001 & CESG-P-2016-05-004
Shames, Peter M (312B)
peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov
Wed Jul 27 17:46:55 UTC 2016
Gippo, Gilles, et al,
In the interest of moving these documents into agency review I am going to accept the current resolution of conditions and agree to sending these out to the agencies.
That said, I do want to go on the record that I am concerned that what appears to be a very strict adherence to a policy of “we can’t change that, it’s in older documents” is a sure fire way to stifle creativity and forward progress. If the Internet took that approach we would not have IP v6, nor the van Jacobsen performance mods to TCP, nor SMTP with MIME types, nor HTTPS and HTML5, nor … The same sort of progression can be seen in Ethernet evolution (was 1 Mbps, now over 1 Gbps), for USB (was 1.1 Mbps, now on version 3 and 480 Mbps). There is a very long list of improvements that other standards organizations have been able to make that have moved them ahead in performance and features. But we seem to be getting continual push back that things can’t evolve, nor descriptions be clarified, because of some choices made 15 (or more) years ago.
I will point out that if we had used this same approach 15 years ago when those SLP docs had a major revision that we never would have had the improved SLP protocols docs we now have; we would have stuck with the original versions from the 1980’s. I do believe that we must be careful about what we change, so as to preserve backward compatibility and not break existing infrastructure (see Architecture Principles, “A4 MINIMIZE DISRUPTIONS Statement: Minimize Disruptions to Existing Standards and Installed Systems”). But note that this does not say “don’t change anything”. It does say “… there will also be situations where unforecasted mission requirements or operating modes will mandate consideration of otherwise disruptive approaches.”
When we are developing major new capabilities, such as USLP surely represents, we should be more bold just because we are defining something that is explicitly intended to move us into the future. And, because this is nowhere implemented, just because it is brand new, we should have no fear of breaking anything because there is no existing infrastructure that supports this protocol nor the data rates it is capable of sustaining.
From: CESG <cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> on behalf of Gian Paolo Calzolari <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>
Date: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 3:37 AM
To: CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Cc: Tom Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>, "Massimo.Bertinelli at esa.int" <Massimo.Bertinelli at esa.int>, Greg Kazz <greg.j.kazz at jpl.nasa.gov>
Subject: [CESG] SLS Area Dispositions for SEA Condition on CESG Polls CESG-P-2016-06-001 & CESG-P-2016-05-004
please find in the attached file the SLS Area Dispositions for SEA Condition on CESG Poll CESG-P-2016-06-001.
The SLS Area Dispositions for SEA Condition on CESG Poll CESG-P-2016-05-004 are already available as per https://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/2016-July/000991.html .
All SLS Area dispositions have been coordinated with the relevant WG Chairs.
SLS Area AD and DAD are confident we can proceed for both CMC Polls with acceptance of the dispositions by SEA Area as soon as the CCSDS Editors implements the agreed changes.
Gian Paolo & Gilles
SLS AD and DAD
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...
More information about the CESG