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

Tue Sep 13 18:19:28 UTC 2016

The procedures state that WGs must request a document number at time of project formation. My task is to provide numbers on request, not to assure they are entered correctly in the Framework.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 13, 2016, at 2:06 PM, Nestor.Peccia at esa.int wrote:
> 
> But you assign the numbers  
> And if the WG does not request you do not move
> Fantastic
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using IBM Verse
> 
> On 13 Sep 2016, 19:24:22, thomas.gannett at tgannett.net wrote:
> 
> From: thomas.gannett at tgannett.net
> To: Nestor.Peccia at esa.int, kscott at mitre.org
> Cc: cesg at mailman.ccsds.org
> Date: 13 Sep 2016 19:24:22
> Subject: RE: [Secretariat] [CESG] Lack of a standardised approach for CCSDS	Document Number
> 
> Nestor:
>  
> Modifying Working Group entries in the Framework is not normally a task of the Chief Technical Editor.
>  
> Tom
>  
>  
> Thomas Gannett
> thomas.gannett at tgannett.net
> +1 443 472 0805
>  
> From: Secretariat [mailto:secretariat-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] On Behalf Of Nestor.Peccia at esa.int
> Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 12:22 PM
> To: Keith Scott
> Cc: CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec(cesg
> Subject: Re: [Secretariat] [CESG] Lack of a standardised approach for CCSDS Document Number
>  
> It is normally a task of the chief technical editor
> And not very difficult
> It will take me 30' to do it
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using IBM Verse
> 
> On 13 Sep 2016, 18:08:56, kscott at mitre.org wrote:
> 
> From: kscott at mitre.org
> To: peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov, Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int
> Cc: cesg at mailman.ccsds.org
> Date: 13 Sep 2016 18:08:56
> Subject: Re: [CESG] Lack of a standardised approach for CCSDS Document Number
> 
> I concur with Nestor / Gian-Paolo in principle, but with Peter in practice.  We SHOULD normalize these, but I doubt it’s an issue affecting operations / daily work.
>  
> I have just confirmed that I can edit entries that aren’t SIS.  How about somebody who cares just fix them (or ask the secretariat to do it)?  Maybe its possible to implement a restriction on data format in SharePoint to keep it from happening in the future.
>  
>                                 --keith
>  
>  
> From: "cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org" <cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> on behalf of Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
> Date: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 12:00 PM
> To: Gian Calzolari <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>
> Cc: CCSDS Exec <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
> Subject: Re: [CESG] Lack of a standardised approach for CCSDS Document Number
>  
> 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 
> 
> <ATT1-image001.gif>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 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.
> 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/cd959f40/attachment.html>