[CESG] CESG polls stucked with ADs/DADs conditions

Thu Sep 7 07:11:24 UTC 2017

Peter,
        No way we can agree on this item.
Gian Paolo

From:   "Shames, Peter M (312B)" <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
To:     "Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int" <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>
Cc:     "Bernard L. Edwards" <Bernard.L.Edwards at nasa.gov>, "CCSDS CESG --" 
<cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>, "Lee, Dennis K (332G)" 
<dennis.k.lee at jpl.nasa.gov>, "Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int" 
<Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int>, "Andrews, Kenneth S (332B)" 
<kenneth.s.andrews at jpl.nasa.gov>, "Klaus-Juergen.Schulz at esa.int" 
<Klaus-Juergen.Schulz at esa.int>, "Massimo.Bertinelli at esa.int" 
<Massimo.Bertinelli at esa.int>, "Nestor.Peccia at esa.int" 
<Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>, "Tai, Wallace S (9000)" 
<wallace.s.tai at jpl.nasa.gov>
Date:   06/09/2017 17:31
Subject:        Re: [CESG] CESG polls stucked with ADs/DADs conditions

Gippo,

Rules is rules.  To quote from CCSDS Organization and Processes, Sec B1.2, 
pg b-2-3:

B1.2 RECOMMENDED STANDARD BRANCH 
Documents on the Recommended Standard branch of the Normative Track are as 
follows: a) CCSDS Proposed Draft Recommended Standard (White Book) 
…
A Proposed Draft Recommended Standard should have no known technical 
omissions with respect to the requirements placed upon it. However, this 
requirement may be waived by the CESG to allow a specification to advance 
to the Proposed Draft Recommended Standard state when it is considered to 
be useful and necessary (and timely) even with known technical omissions. 

The document itself says that it is incomplete.  And there can be no great 
urgency in publishing it as is, or without the inclusion of a VCM approach 
that works for all CCSDS codes and modulations, because the SCCC and DVB, 
with their different, existing, closed, approaches, are already published.

I am really puzzled by some of your statements.  This is not about 
penalizing someone, or some group; nor about one agency vs another.  This 
is about the quality of CCSDS documents and our roles, as WG chairs and 
Area Directors in ensuring the quality of those documents.  It is a poor 
enough situation that this incomplete document has taken up this much CESG 
time.  I would in no way support also wasting agency time in reviewing a 
document that is stated to be incomplete.  That violates our principles 
and is a waste of resources.

Best regards, Peter

From: Gian Paolo Calzolari <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>
Date: Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 10:58 PM
To: Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: Bernie Edwards <Bernard.L.Edwards at nasa.gov>, CCSDS Engineering 
Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>, Dennis K Lee 
<dennis.k.lee at jpl.nasa.gov>, "Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int" 
<Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int>, Kenneth Andrews 
<kenneth.s.andrews at jpl.nasa.gov>, Klaus-Juergen Schulz 
<Klaus-Juergen.Schulz at esa.int>, "Massimo.Bertinelli at esa.int" 
<Massimo.Bertinelli at esa.int>, Nestor Peccia <Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>
Subject: Re: [CESG] CESG polls stucked with ADs/DADs conditions

Peter, 
        no way I can agree with you on this. 
The document is complete as it captures what is available today. 
As you can see at  
https://cwe.ccsds.org/fm/Lists/Projects/DispForm.aspx?ID=398&Source=https%3A%2F%2Fcwe%2Eccsds%2Eorg%2Ffm%2FLists%2FCharters%2FDispForm%2Easpx%3FID%3D32 
for the Description of Document: "        This Magenta Book defines 
normative, controlling guidance for the implementation of Variable Code 
and Modulation (VCM) systems using coding and modulation schemes 
standardized in CCSDS." and therefore the contents match the target. 

You simply penalise the complete WG because an Agency is late (surely for 
good reasons) in contributing to other books. 

And remember that the poll was for agency review and not for publication, 
so that agency would have had the opportunity for advancing the work e.d. 
at this fall meeting (even if they did not succeed from the project 
approval in March 2014) 

Regards 

Gippo 

From:        "Shames, Peter M (312B)" <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov> 
To:        "Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int" <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int> 
Cc:        "Nestor.Peccia at esa.int" <Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>, 
"Massimo.Bertinelli at esa.int" <Massimo.Bertinelli at esa.int>, "Andrews, 
Kenneth S (332B)" <kenneth.s.andrews at jpl.nasa.gov>, 
"Klaus-Juergen.Schulz at esa.int" <Klaus-Juergen.Schulz at esa.int>, "Bernard L. 
Edwards" <Bernard.L.Edwards at nasa.gov>, "CCSDS CESG --" 
<cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>, "Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int" 
<Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int>, "Lee, Dennis K (332G)" 
<dennis.k.lee at jpl.nasa.gov> 
Date:        05/09/2017 23:57 
Subject:        Re: [CESG] CESG polls stucked with ADs/DADs conditions 

Gippo, 

Putting forward documents that are clearly incomplete, and even say so, is 
a waste of all of our time.  If you wish to believe that I am "the bad 
guy" and reject this, that's fine.   

But please, all of you who had a roll in sending this forward in an 
incomplete state are really the ones who bear the responsibility for this 
problem, not me. 

Regards, Peter 

From: Gian Paolo Calzolari <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>
Date: Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 2:31 PM
To: Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: Nestor Peccia <Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>, "Massimo.Bertinelli at esa.int" 
<Massimo.Bertinelli at esa.int>, Kenneth Andrews 
<kenneth.s.andrews at jpl.nasa.gov>, Klaus-Juergen Schulz 
<Klaus-Juergen.Schulz at esa.int>, Bernie Edwards 
<Bernard.L.Edwards at nasa.gov>, CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec 
<cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>, "Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int" 
<Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int>, Dennis K Lee <dennis.k.lee at jpl.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: [CESG] CESG polls stucked with ADs/DADs conditions 

Not at all. 
Putting conditions that cannot be accomplished means rejecting the poll. 

Gian Paolo

Sent from my iPhone 

On 5. Sep 2017, at 23:29, Shames, Peter M (312B) <
peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: 
Gippo, et al, 

Just to be entirely clear.  My condition was to ask that the document meet 
the terms and maturity status required of all documents to be sent out for 
agency review.  I did not "REJECT" it, I asked that it be completed, as 
required. 

Dear Massimo, 

Since the document itself says "For systems compliant with CCSDS 131.0-B-2 
further work is needed. " I think it is clear that the WG understands that 
the document is not yet complete.  I think it wisest to use the available 
time and effort to remedy that, and when it is complete, and at an 
adequate level of maturity, it should then be proposed again for agency 
review. 

Best regards, Peter 

It is up to the WG to meet the usual maturity conditions such that the 
document does not include statements like that.  I think the correct 
characterization is that the WG chose to WITHDRAW the document because it 
is not mature, and they could not remedy that in time, and not that it was 
rejected. 

Best regards, Peter 

From: CESG <cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> on behalf of Gian Paolo 
Calzolari <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>
Date: Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 2:44 AM
To: Nestor Peccia <Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>
Cc: "Massimo.Bertinelli at esa.int" <Massimo.Bertinelli at esa.int>, Kenneth 
Andrews <kenneth.s.andrews at jpl.nasa.gov>, Klaus-Juergen Schulz <
Klaus-Juergen.Schulz at esa.int>, Bernie Edwards <Bernard.L.Edwards at nasa.gov
>, CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: Re: [CESG] CESG polls stucked with ADs/DADs conditions 

Nestor, 
       For the SLS VCM Protocol RB it has been clarified that the SEA 
Condition was actually a REJECT. 
SLS disagreement was expressed in mail dated 08/08/2017 14:30 

For SLS Optical Comm Physical Layer RB the WG is working on replies to the 
conditions. 

Regards 

Gian Paolo 

PS The relevant WG chairs are copied here for information with the request 
to not do reply to all. 

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:        05/09/2017 11:12 
Subject:        [CESG] CESG polls stucked with ADs/DADs conditions 
Sent by:        "CESG" <cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> 

Dear all, 

There are 6 CESG closed polls with "not yet solved" conditions. The 6 
polls are on documents to be issued for Agency Review. 
i.e. 
1.        SLS VCM Protocol RB 
2.        SLS Optical Comm Physical Layer RB 
3.        CSS Guidelines for spec of CSTS RB 
4.        MOIMS MO MAL Binding to ZMTP transport 
5.        MOIMS MO Data Product bDistribution RB 
6.        MOIMS MO Common Services RB 

It means that we have missed the opportunity to discuss the potential RIDs 
at the F17 meeting in Netherlands. 

ciao 
nestor 
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. 

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. 

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.

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/20170907/25c0b92a/attachment.html>