[CESG] Fw: AW: [CMC] CESG Report to CMC

Shames, Peter M (312B) peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov
Thu Jun 8 18:50:01 UTC 2017


Input inserted in-line.  Below.

Thanks, Peter

From: CESG <cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> on behalf of Nestor Peccia <Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>
Date: Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 6:41 AM
To: CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: [CESG] Fw: AW: [CMC] CESG Report to CMC

Dear all,

Please see your actions for clarification   Your final updates by Friday 9th June COB (USA PST).

I am leaving on Saturday afternoon for Sant Petersburg. I will produce the last CESG presentation update by Saturday noon.



Page 3: I would delete the SIS voice here, the problem is the secretariat, not the WG. I would not blame the secretariat for the delays, there were contract problems and some inconsistencies and 3 years delay is a little bit too much, but if the WG is accepting that, we should not complain against the secretariat, they are doing a great job. Nestor to clarify

Page 8: What are the “data quality” issues mentioned                Peter to clarify

<<The "data quality" issues are minor, but potentially annoying, inaccuracies that existed in the source data and were carried into the new registries.  Examples are:

in Contacts: "first name" and "last name" are identified in the new database to allow sorting on last name.  In much of the source data there is just a Name field, so this first / last name distinction must be handled by editing the data.

In Organizations:  Many of the entries (which came from at least three different sources) are missing information such as Country, URL, abbreviation, address, and roles.

Since the original sources did not have these data fields nothing is lost in terms of "quality", but it will be important to remedy this if the new registries are to be as useful as they can be.  SEA SSG proposes making these new registries "official" and dealing with these quality issues after the fact as a "clean up" exercise. >>

Page 26: Are there any proposals from the WG/agencies for new chair/deputy?  Erik to clarify

Page 33: Is that a question to IOAG or within the WG. What kind of file service is planned by the area.   Erik to clarify

Page 36: Are the resources for the second CFDP prototype still missing? Comments on page 39/49  Scott to clarify

Page 60: The WG requests the CCSDS management to formalize the WG membership. Is there any proposal, what a formalized membership could be?   Mario to clarify

Page 63: What happened to the Perturbation Message, which was a draft book and disappeared? Mario to clarify

Page 66: Are there any priority issues coming from the work of the IOAG MOSSG final report? Mario to clarify an please highlight that the MOSSG priorities are not taken into consideration because are their opinion and not the official  IOAG output

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/20170608/90ab1823/attachment.html>

More information about the CESG mailing list