[CESG] CESG review of CCSDS MO M&C Services book

Fri Feb 10 22:13:08 UTC 2017

Dear Peter,

Sam will proceed as you recommended, i.e. Sam will update the document so 
that you can re-re-review it, but only for the showstopper issues. 

As done already at the last CESG in Rome, Brigitte and I would like to 
voice again our discontent on your approach that repeated also on this 
CESG poll. What we had agreed in Rome and agreed by the CMC was:

Scope of conditions prior to Publication (including AD/DAD participation 
in Agency Reviews)
- CESG suggests that  AD/DAD minimize their conditions at time of CESG 
book publication polls. CESG members have the opportunity to raise 
technical issues prior / during Agency Review(s)
...
- CESG recommends to raise PIDs (Poll Item Discrepancy) at least for 
showstopper conditions during polls and identify conditions that are non 
showstopper as such.

We believe that your 91 points raised at CESG poll for publication and 
your insistence to have the document re-updated (after the already made 
update that followed the Agency Review) for your own personal review are 
not in line with the above agreement. We repeat once more: your detailed 
comments are very welcome, but they must be channelled through the Agency 
Review. If this is not done, the already scarce agency resources will be 
wasted with work duplication and with frustrated WG members.

In order to speed up the work and respect the agreement in Rome, could you 
please generate asap the PIDs for those points that you consider 
showstoppers. For those, Sam will provide you with the red-lined version 
of the document. Please provide the PIDs by eob 14Feb17 (they should have 
been provided at the closure of the CESG poll). We think that this is an 
acceptable compromise at this stage. In the future, ideally this should 
not happen again and your detailed comment must be raised during the 
agency review period.

Regards,

__Mario

From:   "Shames, Peter M (312B)" <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
To:     "Sam Cooper" <sam at brightascension.com>, "Barkley, Erik J (3970)" 
<erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc:     "Secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org" <Secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org>, 
"Mario Merri" <Mario.Merri at esa.int>, "Dan Smith" 
<danford.s.smith at nasa.gov>, "Nestor Peccia" <Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>
Date:   09/02/2017 22:41
Subject:        Re: CESG review of CCSDS MO M&C Services book

Hi Sam,

In my viewer I see your comments stacked on top of mine and have to 
separate them and view them separately.  I did that for quite a number, so 
I saw what you had replied.  In some cases your notes said "Accepted" as 
in this case.  In others there was some other sort of a reply that 
indicated agreement, or issues.  Some of the conditions asked for new 
figures or clarifications.  And with all of that there are really a 
significant number of changes requested for clarifications and re-wording.

If there were just a few issues using the PDF document could be made to 
work.  But in this case, until I see the document that is the result of 
all these changes I could not possibly provide approval.  I do not think 
that trying to do this as an exchange of annotations and notes in the PDF 
file is going to be a good way to accomplish this, so I suggest resorting 
to actually editing the document.

Regards, Peter

From: Sam Cooper <sam at brightascension.com>
Date: Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 12:39 AM
To: Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>, Erik Barkley 
<erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: CCSDS Secretariat <Secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org>, Mario Merri 
<Mario.Merri at esa.int>, Dan Smith <danford.s.smith at nasa.gov>, Nestor Peccia 
<Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>
Subject: Re: CESG review of CCSDS MO M&C Services book

Hi Peter,

I would really like to acoid that situation as I would like to have 
consensus on each point before making the changes, this would be in the 
hope of avoiding multiple revisions (and update/review cycles).

I think the problem might be the use of PDF as a review medium, although I 
wonder if the PDF viewer you are using is missing some feature as I do not 
see what you see:

As you can see, my comment is located in your comment as a reply. The 
version of Acrobat that I am using is:

Shall we try again to use the PDF tools? It should be noted that the 
version you just sent me has had the replies split, so you would have to 
go back to the original I sent out before.

Regards,
Sam.

On 09/02/2017 04:42, Shames, Peter M (312B) wrote:
Hi Sam,

In trying to follow what you propose to change using this "my note covers 
your note" approach I cannot get any kind of clear picture of what the 
final document is going to look like.  I suggest that you attempt to 
implement the requested changes (at least those that you agree with) and 
re-submit the integrated result.  I commit to reviewing that and either 
concurring, or not, as seems appropriate.

Thanks, Peter

From: Sam Cooper <sam at brightascension.com>
Date: Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 1:21 AM
To: Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>, Erik Barkley 
<erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: CCSDS Secretariat <Secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org>, Mario Merri 
<Mario.Merri at esa.int>, Dan Smith <danford.s.smith at nasa.gov>, Nestor Peccia 
<Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>
Subject: CESG review of CCSDS MO M&C Services book

Dear Erik and Peter,

Thank you for taking the time to review the specification and provide your 
comments. Please find attached the WG response to your comments including 
the detailed marked up copy from Peter (I have responded in the PDF like 
you did Peter).

Please could you let us have your response by Friday the 3rd of Feb.

Best regards,
Sam.

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/20170210/757fb101/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 154641 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20170210/757fb101/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 27850 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20170210/757fb101/attachment-0001.png>