[CMC] CCSDS relationship to the ECSS [RE: CMC-R-2006-01-00]

[Soula Jean-Marc]

Dear Adrian,
 
I'm not sure that CCSDS, either at the CMC or the CESG level, have the authority to decide that the message received from the ECSS Executive Committee and from the officer officially in charge of the liaisons with other standardization bodies, is "void" or "not approved" and our action to review and comment is "nullified". Whatever we get from ECSS we will get it at the same interface level...
 
Obviously, the document that we have received is a working document on which the ECSS Executive expects review and comments so that the version agreed upon between CCSDS and ECSS is then submitted for final approval to the ECSS Steering Board and I guess the CMC.
The proposal we received at the CMC level is fully consistant with previous communications made by the European delegates at the CMC (Athens & Reston). 
My understanding of the e-poll at the CMC level is that the CCSDS secretariat had selected this way to collect comments, if any, from the delegates. This was, in my opinion, the easiest way to make progress on it before our next meeting, although other methods were also possible. The comment made by BNSC makes sense as, obviously, the practical implementation will be at the level of the CESG and the feasibility should be analyzed at that level ; a complete analysis requires a feedback from the CESG after the "consensus" shown by the votes at CMC level. 
 
Therefore, except if you got any official communication from ECSS that nullifies the previous one - and in this case, this should be communicated to all of the CMC members - , I would recommend that the question raised by BNSC to the CESG is processed and answered, so that on the CCSDS side, we prepare for the next steps of development of this interface with ECSS. 
 
 
Another comment on an almost independent subject: your email below made me realize that I'm not sure of the definition of a "clean consensus" and I'm not aware of the official processing we have in CCSDS in case not all of the votes are showing "adopt". Should we consider that all such votes are stalled in CCSDS ? Who takes care of these situations ? Should we come back on all previous such cases, even if they were already considered approved ? Maybe a good agenda item for our upcoming meeting in Moscow.
 
Best regards

Jean-Marc SOULA 
Chargé de Mission Réseaux de Stations 
DCT/OP/CM 
CNES - 18, Avenue Edouard BELIN 
31401 Toulouse Cedex 9 - France 
Tel :  (+33) (0)5 612 74647 
Fax : (+33) (0)5 612 73135 
Email : Jean-Marc.Soula at cnes.fr 

-----Message d'origine-----
De : cmc-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org [mailto:cmc-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] De la part de Adrian J. Hooke
Envoyé : lundi 3 avril 2006 21:43
À : CCSDS Management Council
Cc : CCSDS Secretariat; CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - ADs
Objet : [CMC] CCSDS relationship to the ECSS [RE: CMC-R-2006-01-00]


_____________________________________

BACKGROUND:

1. Last year, the European Cooperation on Space Standardization (ECSS) sent the attached proposal document "Cooperation agreement/MoU with respect to the interface between CCSDS and ECSS" to CCSDS for approval. 

2. The document was put up for a CMC Poll, which closed in January 2006: 

	CMC-R-2006-01-001, Proposed resolution to approve Cooperation agreement/MoU with respect to the interface between CCSDS and ECSS 
	
	CONSIDERING that: 
	CCSDS and ECSS both develop standards for space systems, 
	and ACKNOWLEDGING that: 
	cooperation between the two organizations would be beneficial, 
	and RECOGNIZING that: 
	the ECSS has submitted a Cooperation Agreement/MoU for review by the CMC (see attached ECSS_Policy_on_CCSDS Rev1b), 
	RESOLVES to approve the Cooperation agreement/MoU with respect to the interface between CCSDS and ECSS. 
	********************************** 

3. The CMC didn't reach a clean consensus in this poll. However, BNSC  adopted the resolution provisionally with the following comment: "As an MoU, this document seems reasonable. However it does state that the CESG will do certain things, so I would like to check that the CESG chair is happy with the document".

4. Accordingly, on 30 January 2006 - as CESG Chair -  I sent the ECSS proposals to the Area Directors for their comment. So far, the CESG has not taken a position on this matter.

5. Therefore, this matter is officially "stalled" within CCSDS.
_____________________________________

CURRENT SITUATION:

6. It now appears that the original ECSS proposal was NOT formally approved by the ECSS prior to transmission to the CCSDS.

7. Consequently, the current ECSS proposal should be considered void and the voting action already taken by CCSDS should be nullified.

8. If the ECSS decides to officially re-submit the proposal, it can be expected to come to the CCSDS as an approved transmission at some point in the future.
_____________________________________

Consequently, this matter may now be considered to be "closed without action".

Best regards


Adrian J. Hooke
Chairman, CCSDS Engineering Steering Group (CESG)



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cmc/attachments/20060412/db97b30a/attachment.htm