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

[Shames, Peter M (312B)]

And I ask, just how much real value does this add to our standards?

Peter

From: Gian Paolo Calzolari <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>
Date: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 8:20 AM
To: Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>, CESG <cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>, Nestor Peccia <Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>, CCSDS Secretariat <Secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: Re: [CESG] Lack of a standardised approach for CCSDS Document Number

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

[cid:image001.gif at 01D20D9D.44806F20]




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/20160913/384c575d/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 45295 bytes
Desc: image001.gif
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20160913/384c575d/attachment.gif>