[CMC] PAIMAS: an issue for CMC Resolution

Tue May 11 09:36:10 EDT 2004

I suggest that we discuss this at the forthcoming CMC meeting and try to
reach a conclusion. If we do not reach an obvious concensus, but there are
not serious difficulties, then I propose that we toss a coin. I really do
mean that. I believe it is more important to proceed with getting the book
published under one colour or the other than to continue a long debate about
it.

I will bring the coin.

Peter
----------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Dr. Peter M. Allan 
Head, Space Data Division 
Space Science and Technology Department 
CCLRC/Rutherford Appleton Laboratory 
Chilton 
Didcot                                   Tel:     +44 (1235) 445723 
Oxon OX11 0QX                            fax:     +44 (1235) 446667 
England                                  e-mail: p.m.allan at rl.ac.uk 

-----Original Message-----
From: cmc-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org [mailto:cmc-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org]On
Behalf Of Adrian J. Hooke
Sent: 10 May 2004 22:40
To: CCSDS Management Council
Cc: CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - ADs
Subject: [CMC] PAIMAS: an issue for CMC Resolution

The CMC needs to decide whether to approve the "Producer Archive Ingest
Methodology Abstract Standard" (PAIMAS) as a CCSDS Recommended Standard or a
CCSDS Recommended PRACTICE at the CMC meeting starting on 24th May 2004. In
deciding this issue, the CMC should consult Issue-2 of the CCSDS
Restructuring document,"Restructured CCSDS Organization and Processes"
(CCSDS A02.1-Y-2). This was published by the Secretariat (April 2004) and
contains more some explicit guidelines for deciding whether a document
should be a Standard or a Practice.

BACKGROUND:

1. Last December, the CESG was unable to reach consensus on whether this
PAIMAS should be published as a CCSDS Recommended STANDARD (Blue Book) or a
CCSDS Recommended PRACTICE (Magenta Book). This issue was therefore referred
to the CMC:

-----------------

Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:06:56 -0800 
From: "Adrian J. Hooke" <Adrian.J.Hooke at jpl.nasa.gov> 
Subject: [CESG] CESG RESOLUTION, CESG-03-016: PRODUCER-ARCHIVE INTERFACE 
METHODOLOGY 
TO: SECRETARIAT
FROM: CESG CHAIR
SUBJECT: CESG RESOLUTION CESG-03-016: PRODUCER-ARCHIVE INTERFACE METHODOLOGY
__________________________________________
CESG RESOLUTION, Tracking Number: CESG-03-016

1. "The CESG recommends to the CMC that the MOIMS-DAI-WG document entitled
'Producer-Archive Interface Methodology Abstract Standard'
(651x0b1-draft.pdf) should be published on the Standards Track and should be
forwarded to ISO for balloting. 

2. HOWEVER, the CESG has been unable to reach consensus on which branch of
the Standards Track this document should lie, i.e., whether it should be
issued as a CCSDS Recommended Standard (Blue Book) or as a CCSDS Best
Current Practice (Magenta Book). There is a minority body of opinion within
the CESG that feels that, while the document has technical merit, it is
insufficiently prescriptive to be a Recommended Standard. The CMC is
therefore invited to decide whether this should be published as a Blue Book
or a Magenta Book"
________________________________________________

Part of the reason that there is a disagreement is that the CESG believes
that there currently isn't a clear enough distinction between the objectives
of a Recommended Standard and those of a Best Current Practice. Accordingly,
the attached draft "Pink Sheets" to the Restructuring Plan have been created
in order to highlight this issue and to suggest a way forward whereby the
CMC might amend the definition of the CCSDS document hierarchy prior to
making the decision on how to publish the 'Producer-Archive Interface
Methodology Abstract Standard'.

Please forward this Resolution CESG-03-016, along with the attached draft
Restructuring "Pink Sheets" to the CCSDS Management Council, and notify the
CESG when the CMC takes action.

------------------

2. However, the CMC voting last December was inconclusive and the document
has been in limbo since that time. The Data Archive Ingest Working Group has
submitted the following rationale for why the PAIMAS should become a Blue
Book:

-- The DAI WG believes that it has met all the requirements. The two
criteria specified in the CCSDS procedures manual, namely that comments have
been properly handled and the appropriateness of 2 implementations is
addressed satisfactorily.

-- The DAI WG has always believed (during the 2 years -2002 / 2003-
development)that the PAIMAS document was on the CCSDS Recommended Standard
track.

-- The DAI WG has completed all the steps for PAIMAS to become a CCSDS
Recommended Standard.

-- The CMC and CESG have up until now, even under the new organization, at
least implicitly recognized that the PAIMAS work item was on the "CCSDS
Recommended Standard" track.

-- The CMC and CESG have previously distributed the PAIMAS document to all
CCSDS Agencies and the general public for formal review to be a CCSDS
Recommended Standard.

-- The CMC has directed CESG to "maintaining backward compatibility and of
not perturbing the installed base at all stages of development, unless
specifically approved by the CMC."

-- Even if CMC thinks CESG should be able to force track changes at the last
minute, then the DAI WG believes that the PAIMAS work item still fits the
criteria of a CCSDS Recommended Standard much better than it fits the
criteria for a Recommended Practice.

3. In summary, there is no disagreement that the PAIMAS should be published
on the Standards Track. The question is whether the document contains a
sufficiently prescriptive set of requirements to be considered as a
STANDARD, or whether it lacks a strong prescriptive flavor and would
therefore be more correctly issued as a PRACTICE.

Best regards

Adrian J. Hooke
Chairman, CCSDS Engineering Steering Group (CESG)
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 
Interplanetary Network Directorate
M/S 303-400, 4800 Oak Grove Drive
Pasadena, California 91109-8099, USA
+1.818.354.3063 OFFICE
+1.818.653.9553 MOBILE
+1 818.393.2606 FAX
http://www.ccsds.org <http://www.ccsds.org/> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cmc/attachments/20040511/3a220ddb/attachment.html