[CESG] IOAG: Service Catalogue #1

Shames, Peter M (312B) peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov
Tue Sep 27 17:47:31 UTC 2016


Nestor,

I am sure we will have lots of time to discuss these various issues at the CESG meeting, it seems to be a hot topic.

Comments in-line, below.

Ciao, Peter


From: Nestor Peccia <Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>
Date: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 10:12 AM
To: Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: Re: [CESG] IOAG: Service Catalogue #1

Peter

I believe that any CESG member should cast its opinion with  her / his CESG hat, No doubt about it.

but

  1.  Communication in any organization is a precious asset
Yes

  1.  In any normal organization participants to IOAG and CCSDS  discuss these types of issues internally in advance and  prior to the approval of documents at Agency level., such that a consensus can be reached.  The danger is that somebody is overruled or do not say at organization level her ;/ his opinion, and then uses the power of the independent assessor to cast his opinion, This could be a dangerous game, as you have experienced in the past.
There's also a danger to the organization, CCSDS in this case, of being pushed to do something expedient in the short term that has poor long term consequences.  It is our role, as CESG members, to try and avoid such "pitfalls".

In addition, your are always showing the same pattern wrt reviews

  1.  you are usually waiting until the last instance to deliver "your comments". This will be discussed at the next CESG meeting in relation to the CESG assessment of the quality of recommendations.
Speaking of pitfalls, here is an analogy for you.  If you are wandering around in the dark, near such a pitfall, and someone strikes a match at the last minute before you step over the edge of the precipice, is that more, or less, useful than if no one shines a light of any sort?  Or do you blame the person who did shine the light because they didn’t do it sooner?  Is everyone who votes "Approve unconditionally" or "Does not affect my area" shining any light at all on our issues?  Is that "feedback" even if it is immediate, particularly useful, or is it just convenient?

Last but not least, please let me have your old mails when complaining about the SC#1 file services.

If we go back to 2 services (file forward and file return)., will you be happy ? I have already my opinion, but please let us have it.

I thought that the original file services were an issue too, but I understood the logic of why they were requested.  You will find a viable way to provide those defined in the SCCS-ADD, using the CSTS F-Frame to support it.  The logic there remains the same, to define the set of packet, frame, merging, encoding functions once for the ESLT and to re-use them where needed for the "upper level" services like file and DTN.  And note, this is re-use in the "standards plumbing" sense and not the implementation sense, though it should be the case that the one support the other.

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/20160927/21cfa9fc/attachment.html>


More information about the CESG mailing list