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

Mario.Merri at esa.int Mario.Merri at esa.int
Wed Mar 1 18:02:18 UTC 2017


Dear Peter,

sorry for the late answer, but I have been one week on holiday.

Please note that the document is largely auto-generated and MS Word has 
trouble with matching text when its in tables, and we have a lot of 
tables. Hence a pure MS-Word change track checking is misleading. Also, 
the CCSDS guidelines are quite vague as they call for a new AR "if 
technical issues are identified in the course of a review ..." without 
qualifying the type of technical issues. Indeed, the CCSDS MO M&C Services 
book R3 AR had 159 RIDs of which 129 resulted in some change to the 
document. Should we check if other documents under review had "technical 
issues" and call for a re-review? For instance, did the CSS Monitoring 
data BB had no technical issue identified out of the RIDs raised? I have 
checked and it is certainly not the case.

What I want to say is that if there are rules, they should be clear and 
applied fairly to everyone. I suggest that the CESG looks into these rules 
in view of making them clearer.

Having said that, I propose to move forward and go for the 4th Agency 
Review. The document to be reviewed will be the final version submitted 
for publication after the 3rd AR amended with the changes coming from the 
CESG review by you and Erik. You and Erik will be provided with a version 
with change bars so that you can see how your comments have been 
implemented. Considering that this would be the 4th AR, I have discussed 
the matter with the CESG chair and we have agreed to proceed with an 
expedite 4th AR. This implies:
No need for CESG/CMC poll for AR (allowed by the YB)
No/minimal re-checking of the draft document by Tom before putting it out 
for review (being the 4th review, the document should be already in the 
proper CCSDS format). This implies that this document will be put on top 
of Tom's queue.
1 month review time (allowed by the YB). Please note that the review 
community of this document is largely within the SM&C WG and therefore 
they are fully aware and in agreement of the changes implemented.

I trust the CESG ADs will use this additional opportunity to raise any 
outstanding issue so that we can have a smooth CESG poll after the 4th AR.

Regards,

__Mario



From:   "Shames, Peter M (312B)" <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
To:     "Mario.Merri at esa.int" <Mario.Merri at esa.int>
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" 
<cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Date:   16/02/2017 19:17
Subject:        Re: CESG review of CCSDS MO M&C Services book



Mario,
 
For some reason you persist in trying to convolve the role that the Area 
Directors and the whole CESG is supposed to play in ensuring the quality 
of CCSDS documents with that of an Agency Review participant.  I have 
quoted this section of the CCSDS Organization and Processes, A02.1-Y-4, 
before, but you seem to keep ignoring it.
 
2.3.2.4.3 An Area Director is responsible for the work done in his or her 
WGs, BOFs, and SIGs and is specifically responsible for the following:
d)  ensuring that CCSDS documents are properly categorized and that they 
embody the content and quality expected of documents of their type; ?
 
There is no part of the CCSDS Processes that requires an AD to only submit 
inputs as a part of an agency review.  That is something you have made up. 
 On the contrary, the requirement, as clearly stated, is for ADs, and the 
CESG as a whole, for "identifying ?red flag? items where technical work in 
a proposed CCSDS document is not of the required quality or nature".  I 
take this responsibility seriously and try my hardest to carry out the 
role that has been assigned.  Given that situation, and the effort that is 
involved, I do not make the choice to also participate in Agency Reviews 
and to read through every document twice, or three times, I just do not 
have the time.
 
You should be aware that the intended flow of Red Book processing is that 
by the time they get to Agency Review they are mature documents.  It 
should be the case that following an Agency Review that the only minor 
changes to the document are made and that the document is then easily 
prepared for final CESG and CMC review and approval.  If a document goes 
through major revisions after an Agency Review it is supposed to be sent 
out for another Agency Review.
 
6.2.5 Formal Agency Review
a)       if technical issues are identified in the course of a review, 
those issues must be resolved and the review must be repeated before 
approval can be sought for a change of document status; ?
c)  if substantive changes are made to a document that has completed 
review without technical comment, the Secretariat shall conduct a final 
review in which Agencies can approve or reject the document but may not 
suggest additional changes; ?
I must admit to being somewhat puzzled as to why there were so many issues 
identified in this document that was supposed to have been reviewed by the 
usual Agency Review process.  I had the feeling that there was a lot of 
new material and so I asked the Tech Editor to confirm that the document 
sent for Agency Review Red-3 was, in fact, a minor revision to the one 
sent to the CESG.  That comparison is attached.  I think that if you take 
the time to review this comparison that you will find that there were, in 
fact, many substantive changes made to the document between what was sent 
to Agency Review Red-3 and what was later sent to the CESG for final 
review.
 
Based on this I can only conclude that you, as AD, and the SM&C WG, did 
not follow the CCSDS Procedures and that this document, because of these 
substantive changes, should have been sent out for another Agency Review. 
I recommend that you and the WG review the inputs Erik and I provided and 
apply as many of them as seem acceptable before sending the document out 
for the next Agency Review.
 
The "Show Stopper" PID that you requested is attached.
 
Regards, Peter Shames
 
 
________________________________________________________

Peter Shames
CCSDS System Engineering Area Director

Jet Propulsion Laboratory, MS 301-490
California Institute of Technology
Pasadena, CA 91109 USA 

Telephone: +1 818 354-5740,  Fax: +1 818 393-6871

Internet:  Peter.M.Shames at jpl.nasa.gov
________________________________________________________

We must recognize the strong and undeniable influence that our language 
exerts on our ways of thinking and, in fact, delimits the abstract space 
in which we can formulate - give form to - our thoughts.

Niklaus Wirth

 
 
 
From: Mario Merri <Mario.Merri at esa.int>
Date: Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 1:04 AM
To: Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: Dan Smith <danford.s.smith at nasa.gov>, Erik Barkley 
<erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>, Nestor Peccia <Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>, Sam 
Cooper <sam at brightascension.com>, CCSDS Secretariat 
<Secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org>, CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG 
Exec <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: Re: CESG review of CCSDS MO M&C Services book
 
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.
 [attachment "MO M&C Services Input for Blue Compared to Red 3.doc" 
deleted by Mario Merri/esoc/ESA] [attachment "PID SEA-522x1b0-001.txt" 
deleted by Mario Merri/esoc/ESA] 


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/20170301/32aa60fa/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 154642 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20170301/32aa60fa/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 27851 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20170301/32aa60fa/attachment-0001.png>


More information about the CESG mailing list