[CESG] CESG review of CCSDS MO M&C Services book
Mario.Merri at esa.int
Mario.Merri at esa.int
Thu Feb 16 09:04:49 UTC 2017
Peter,
could you please kindly reply to my note and provide the PIDs?
Thanks
__Mario
----- Forwarded by Mario Merri/esoc/ESA on 16/02/2017 10:03 -----
From: Mario Merri/esoc/ESA
To: "Shames, Peter M (312B)" <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: "Dan Smith" <danford.s.smith at nasa.gov>, "Barkley, Erik J (3970)"
<erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>, "Nestor Peccia" <Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>,
"Sam Cooper" <sam at brightascension.com>, "Secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org"
<Secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org>, cesg at mailman.ccsds.org
Date: 10/02/2017 23:13
Subject: Re: CESG review of CCSDS MO M&C Services book
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/20170216/93f7b4ab/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/20170216/93f7b4ab/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/20170216/93f7b4ab/attachment-0001.png>
More information about the CESG
mailing list