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

[Mario.Merri at esa.int]

Dear Nestor,

please find below my response to the points raised by Osvaldo.

Regards,

__Mario



From:   Nestor.Peccia at esa.int
To:     "CESG -- CCSDS-Engineering Steering 
Group(cesg at mailman.ccsds.org)(cesg at mailman.ccsds.org)" 
<cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Date:   08/06/2017 15:41
Subject:        [CESG] Fw: AW: [CMC] CESG Report to CMC
Sent by:        "CESG" <cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>



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. 

ciao 
nestor 
----------------------------------------------------- 
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 
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 
MM>This point is covered by the proposed updates to the YB. I will delete 
it from the presentation.
Page 63: What happened to the Perturbation Message, which was a draft book 
and disappeared? Mario to clarify 
MM> The Spacecraft Perturbation Message project was deleted upon request 
by the NAV WG of 13Jan17. This decision was based on (a) the fact that the 
technical material that was once targeted for the SPM is now being covered 
in some of the other Navigation WG documents, and (b) leaving it in the 
NAV 5 Year Plan and Draft Project list creates a false impression.
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 
 MM>So far the MOSSG provided only informal information to the SM&C WG. It 
is understood that the CCSDS shall consider in its planning only formal 
priorities coming directly from the IOAG. This has not yet happened.

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.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20170609/5d5e3225/attachment.html>