[CESG] Lack of a standardised approach for CCSDS Document Number

[Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int]

Peter,
        the issue is much simpler and clearly visible if you access the 
link.
Otherwise just look at the snapshot.
BTW, Delta DOR WG is fully OK   :o)
Regards

Gian Paolo






From:   "Shames, Peter M (312B)" <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
To:     "Nestor.Peccia at esa.int" <Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>, "Secretariat" 
<Secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org>, "CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG 
Exec(cesg at mailman.ccsds.org)" <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Date:   13/09/2016 17:13
Subject:        Re: [CESG] Lack of a standardised approach for CCSDS 
Document Number
Sent by:        "CESG" <cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>



Nestor,
 
Since we have document numbering rules already defined in the CCSDS Org & 
Proc (A02x0), and these clearly define the approach for numbering 
published standards I assume that this comment is relevant only for DRAFT 
documents that are stored as working materials in the CWE.  To be frank, 
as long as there is some sort of identifying number and name that makes 
sense on these DRAFT documents, and some sort of version tracking, I 
really do not think we should care too much about how these drafts are 
named.  They are internal work products of the organization.
 
I think maybe we are trying to polish the cannonball here.  As a standards 
organization we should be paying more attention to the quality of what 
goes out the door than to these minutiae of how the WGs name their working 
products. 
 
Regards, Peter
 
 
From: CESG <cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> on behalf of Nestor Peccia 
<Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>
Date: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 7:50 AM
To: CCSDS Secretariat <Secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org>, CCSDS Engineering 
Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: [CESG] Lack of a standardised approach for CCSDS Document Number
 
Dear all, 

I was made aware by an AD (guess whom?) of the different ways a Doc number 
is defined in the CWE 

If you look at http://cwe.ccsds.org/fm/Lists/Projects/AllItems.aspx 
number only (i.e. the correct form) 
number with CCSDS in front 
number with indication of color and issue (for the color there is a 
dedicated field, Issue is normally/often added to the project title) 
number with other field and comments

We can say of ourselves, as an standard organization, "the shoemaker's son 
always goes barefoot" 

Can we do anything about this ? 

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.
_______________________________________________
CESG mailing list
CESG at mailman.ccsds.org
https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20160913/3c393cea/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 45294 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20160913/3c393cea/attachment.gif>