[CESG] Fw: CCSDS Liaison section

Shames, Peter M (312B) peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov
Thu Mar 30 20:42:41 UTC 2017

Ciao Nestor,

I understand that the intent of these changes is to clarify the liaison relationships and the approval, review, and identification of Liaison relationships and delegates.  At present we have the following sources of info:

CCSDS Org & Proc, CCSDS A02.1-Y-4
Sec CCSDS Liaisons (including reference to web site, see below)
Sec 4.1.4 LIAISON Participation (by Liaison in CMC meetings)

CCSDS Web Site, https://public.ccsds.org/participation/liaisons.aspx

The provided text only proposes changes to Sec 4.1.4, this may not be adequate.  It also is somewhat confusing in that it appears to define two different roles:

1.       " a CCSDS representative to act as official counterpart to the Liaison organization’s point of contact"

2.       "an official representative to serve as Liaison Delegate to the external organization"

I find this rather confusing.  It appears that it would be possible to have both a "CCSDS representative" and a "Liaison Delegate".  Is this really what is intended?  Would we ever have both at the same time?  And if we did what would their relationship be within CCSDS?  Why not just have one identified Liaison Delegate role with different levels of participation, as appropriate?  That way this particular confusion of roles goes away.

Furthermore, I suggest that regardless of the level of participation in actual standardization activities that it should be a requirement that "The Liaison Delegate shall be cognizant of the standardization activities of the external organization ".  If this is not the case then what is the purpose of having a liaison relationship at all?   The very definition of liaison is:

communication or cooperation that facilitates a close working relationship between people or organizations.
a person who establishes and maintains communication for mutual understanding and cooperation.

I do think that there is value in having two different levels of participation, one that is passive, i.e. observing / monitoring only, as noted above, probably involving review of plans and documents, and a second that is active, involving active participation (possibly joint) in working meetings.  Either one is a commitment of time and resources.  I think that the OMG role was an active one for a number of years, but that it has been passive (or less) for a while now.  The IOAG liaison, on the other hand, is more active and always has been.  Of the fourteen liaison orgs listed on the CCSDS web site I suspect that most of them are passive in nature, but we have no way of knowing.  One good thing about this proposed change is that there is a requirement for a semi-annual report and a bi-annual review.

The other think I find peculiar in the proposed text is the statement "at the discretion of his or her respective Agency, may participate in those activities at a level allowed by the organization’s liaison procedures and deemed beneficial to the CCSDS".   This seems to say that someone could be appointed to a liaison role and that their agency could then say that they were not allowed to participate.  I think this is backwards.  I believe that it ought to be the case that any agency that nominates someone to the liaison role must commit to supporting them in that role for at least the nominal period of two years, otherwise what is the point?

I also think that Sec should be updated to point to Sec 4.1.4,, which is where the details are.  And that the web site entry for each Liaison org should include the CCSDS "Liaison Delegate" as well as the PoC of the other org.

While we are on the subject of mods to the CCSDS Org & Proc doc, I think we should also fix the SANA references.  The one on pg 1-1 is out of date (ver 1 instead of ver 2), and the one on pg 2-8, Space Assigned Numbers Authority (SANA), is even worse, it points to CCSDS 313.0-Y-0.3 .  For that matter, this same section should now state that we have the Registry Management Policy (RMP), CCSDS 313.1-Y-1, and the Procedures for SANA Registry Specification, CCSDS 313.2-Y-1, and that WG are expected to comply with them.

Thanks, Peter

From: CESG <cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> on behalf of Nestor Peccia <Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>
Date: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 at 10:59 AM
To: CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: [CESG] Fw: CCSDS Liaison section

Dear all,

Please let me know your comments by mid April 2017 at the latest


----- Forwarded by Nestor Peccia/esoc/ESA on 21/03/2017 18:58 -----

From:        "Afarin, James (HQ-CG000)" <james.afarin at nasa.gov>
To:        "Nestor.Peccia at esa.int" <Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>
Cc:        "Tai, Wallace S (JPL-9000)[Jet Propulsion Laboratory]" <wallace.s.tai at jpl.nasa.gov>
Date:        20/03/2017 18:49
Subject:        CCSDS Liaison section

Hi Nestor,

As promised, here is a draft for updating CCSDS liaison section.  Once CESG agreed with the language then it will come to CMC for review and approval.

Thank you,


Dr. James Afarin

Space Data Standards Manager
Space Communications and Navigation Division
Office: 202-358-5221
Mobile: 202-549-6496

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/20170330/69e70ddb/attachment.html>

More information about the CESG mailing list