[CESG] CCSDS Liaison section

Mon May 1 12:47:25 UTC 2017

Hi Nestor,

Thank you for the input.  There are comments, questions and suggestion in the list below.  It will be wonderful, if time permits, to have the original paragraph marked up with a track change so I can see exactly where are the changes.  This will be a great way for the CMC to consider a final version of the paragraph and eventually vote on it.  Thank you for the CESG and your hard work and kind consideration.

James

Dr. James Afarin

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

From: "Nestor.Peccia at esa.int" <Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>
Date: Friday, April 28, 2017 at 5:57 AM
To: James Afarin <james.afarin at nasa.gov>
Cc: "CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec(cesg" <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: CCSDS Liaison section

James
CESG will discuss your proposed changes on the liaison section during our next meeting.
I have consolidated all comments received. Perhaps, time permitting, you can look at them and produce a new version prior to our venue.
ciao
nestor
================================

General Comments to proposed addition to section 4.1.4
It is proposed to define two different roles:

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

  1.  "an official representative to serve as Liaison Delegate to the external organization"
CESG believes that

  1.  it is confusing (e.g how would their relationship be within CCSDS?

  1.  a timely co-existence of both representatives for a liaison is not needed

  1.  "The Liaison Delegate shall be cognizant of the standardization activities of the external organization and, 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".

     *   CESG believe that this is the currently the case for the 14 existing liaisons. We suggest to add anyway the 1st part of the sentence, i.e  "The Liaison Delegate shall be cognizant of the standardization activities of the external organization "

     *   The 2nd part of the sentence ( i.e. ... at the discretion of ... Agency ...) should not be considered. An Agency when approving one of its staff as liaison, is committing to support her / him in that role
CESG suggest to have only one liaison PoC but with 2 levels of participation

  *   active (i.e active participation in working meetings of the other organization. IOAG is a clear example of this level. OMG liaison shall also be active)
  *   passive (i.e. observing / monitoring. CASCO is a clear example of this level)
•  CESG suggest to add some text clarifying the procedure to follow when the liaison detects duplications and / or contradictions across the two organizations.

  *   CESG fully supports

     *   a bi-annual nomination (potentially renewable), proposed by the CESG and authorised by the CMC

     *   a semi-annual report (Spring and Fall meetings) of the CESG to the CMC

Comments to proposed addition to section 4.2

  1.  Both liaison PoC shall be included in the web site. We have currently only 1 name.

Comments to current section 2.3.1.4.3

  1.  Section to be updated pointing to section 4,.1.4

Comments to current Section 4.1.4

  1.  " Liaison organizations are those governmental or private activities ..."     Does this text cover the current liaisons with IOAG and ECSS ? Is IOAG a governmental organization? Is the word activity correct ?

  1.  " Liaison status is open to non-commercial  ..."   Is " status" text correct ? Do we need to have the " non commercial" text ? Is OMG non-commercial, when charging a fee to every member ?

  1.  Suggestion to add after 2nd sentence. "The purpose of creating a liaison is to ensure that their work in the standards world is not competitive, but rather is complementary and cooperative . This is achieved by reciprocally exchange information regarding current and future standardization activities" . Editorial mistakes in Section 2.3.1.4.3 shall be updated (i.e. " insure" , " complimentary" ).

  1.  " Liaison organizations receive  ..."  Add " from CCSDS Secretariat"

  1.  "... submit comments or initiate Review Item Dispositions (RIDs)" : Either we add a sentence clarifying that if the liaison send comments and not RIDs, the CCSDS Secretariat will convert them into RIDs  or we delete the word comments, imposing the liaisons to send only RIDs"

  1.  Text seems to be rather uni-directional (e.g. from CCSDS to the other organization). CESG suggests to add text wrt the obligation of both organizations to exchange, Plans, resolutions, decisions,  RIDs, etc.

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/20170501/de534876/attachment.html>