[CMC] Re: Repository Audit and Certification Working Group

Tue Apr 22 07:05:09 EDT 2008

Adrian,

I take your point, but I think that you overstate it. If everyone (by that I mean the whole world, not the whole of CCSDS) took the position that "we will only do work where we are the only forum in which work can progress", then a lot of useful work would not get done. I believe the question should be - is CCSDS the appropriate forum?

Cheers

Peter

________________________________

From: cmc-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org [mailto:cmc-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] On Behalf Of Adrian J. Hooke
Sent: 21 April 2008 13:59
To: Nestor.Peccia at esa.int
Cc: Giaretta, DL (David); CCSDS Management Council; CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - ADs
Subject: [CMC] Re: Repository Audit and Certification Working Group

At 06:51 AM 4/21/2008, Nestor.Peccia at esa.int wrote:

	Dear David,
	I suggest that you prepare a consolidated output addressing all the raised
	comments and concerns (e.g. conceptual paper, Charter update, resources,
	schedule). I will then send it to the CMC

Nestor: the critical question that you seem to have avoided is: "why is this work appropriate to be performed by CCSDS?" All new work should be related to the CCSDS Charter, which is quite heavily driven by interoperability concerns:
http://public.ccsds.org/about/charter.aspx

While it was quite natural that early work in the standardization of digital repositories (archives) should have been undertaken by the space agencies - who faced the digital archiving problem long before many other communities - it is not clear that the world has not moved on to the point where another standardization forum might be more appropriate. 

Take as an example the Delay Tolerant Networking Research Group in the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) - where a technology that originated from the space sector is now being developed by a much wider community:
http://www.dtnrg.org

In the case of DTN, we are quite happy to let the broader community hammer away at the technology and the standards. While we have the goal of eventually creating a "space profile" of DTN back in CCSDS (which is interoperable with the larger community), in the meantime we are not consuming scarce CCSDS resources. Why isn't this model now appropriate for digital data archiving? In short, why does CCSDS continue to carry the load for a community that is well able to shoulder its own burden?

This is quite a serious matter. We now have 23 active Working Groups and 9 BOFs. Each new Working Group slices the resources pie even thinner and creates an additional load on the Secretariat and meeting hosting. We need to be quite sure, before forming new groups, that CCSDS is the only forum in which the work can progress.

Best regards
Adrian

Adrian J. Hooke
Chairman, CCSDS Engineering Steering Group (CESG)
NASA Headquarters
Space Communications and Navigation Office, 7L70
Space Operations Mission Directorate

	=====================================================================

	CCSDS Management Council (CMC) Polling
	Authorization to create the Digital Repository Audit and Certification
	Working Group

	The Mission Operations and Information Management Services Area (MOIMS),

	 CONSIDERING that
	 - Many CCSDS member agencies and other organizations are currently producing
	digitally encoded information at an increasing rate, and that
	- These collections are held in a number of digital repositories (archives),
	and that
	- So far there have been no independent criteria to objectively judge whether
	or not any of these archives have been adequately protecting their digital
	holdings, and in particular whether the information in those
	holdings will remain understandable and usable by their Designated
	Communities in the future, and

	RECOGNIZING THAT
	- there is a demand for a standard against which Repositories of digital
	information may be audited and on which an international accreditation and
	certification process may be based,

	RESOLVES that a digital Repository Audit and Certification Working Group be
	formed in
	accordance with the attached charter.
	=============================================
	ASI Bruca Loredana ADOPT

	BNSC Allan Peter ADOPT PROVISIONALLY (i.e., if stated condition is satisfied)
	I originally voted to directly accept this, but I have no problem with Mike's
	provisos.

	CNES Soula Jean-Marc ADOPT

	CSA Hartman Leo ADOPT PROVISIONALLY (i.e., if stated condition is satisfied)
	I agree that the changes to the charter that Mike suggested should be carried
	out.

	I think it's very important work and it was very insightful on the part of
	CCSDS to invest in the area but concerns about appropriate mandate seem hard
	to avoid. I think it would be prudent for the sake of the contribution to
	date and of the OAIS community that we consider extending the charter to
	include the effort of finding a new home in ISO for OAIS related work.

	DLR Pilgram Martin ADOPT PROVISIONALLY (i.e., if stated condition is
	satisfied) Producing Books for auditing and certification should include a
	concept, who is doing both after the generation of the books. Can that be
	done from the owner of the archive, or are the WG planning to be the auditing
	and certification group afterwards?

	ESA Kaufeler Jean-Francois ADOPT

	FSA Secretariat Proxy ADOPT

	INPE Bergamini Eduardo ADOPT PROVISIONALLY (i.e., if stated condition is
	satisfied) This is an "ADOPT" vote. However, it is opportune to express that
	the comments attached to the other votes, so far, express views that are
	pertinent to the context. Digital Repository Audit and Certification
	procedures are a natural complement to the already existing, fundamental OAIS
	concept. Which is also a subject of interest of ISO, already transformed in a
	standard (ISO 14721), in its domain. To the extent CCSDS only originated
	resources may be critical, it is being pondered why not consider a joint,
	liaison work with a possibly existing, appropriately selected ISO TC/WG, for
	the development of the subject which is under proposal by the charter ? It
	could, concurrently, possibly become a CCSDS Magenta Recommendation and an
	ISO Standard, as well. It is worth to remind that "Goal 1" of the proposed
	CCSDS WG is also expected to become, in advance, a requirement criteria for
	compliance by an ISO Trusted Digital Repository which, in its turn, is
	another standard, yet to be probably developed by ISO, as it is being
	expressed by the charter.

	JAXA Junjiro Nakahara ADOPT

	NASA Kearney Mike ADOPT PROVISIONALLY (i.e., if stated condition is
	satisfied) For the sake of expedient formation of a working group, I am
	voting "adopt provisionally" and stating the following provisions:

	Based on conversations with the Area Director, the red book identified is
	destined to become a magenta book, and the resources listed are incomplete
	(missing reviewer manpower and magenta book production).  Therefore the
	charter must be updated to reflect all of the manpower that the agencies are
	expected to commit, and the schedule must reflect the production of a magenta
	book.  Also the usual concept paper is not being produced because of "other
	material" that is already available between the more than 100 associates in
	the wiki and mailing-list. The charter should at least have some statements
	that reflect where this other material is, to support the CMC evaluation of
	the concept of the working group.

	Other agencies should consider whether these changes are appropriate to be
	fixed with "adopt provisionally" or if they are too extensive to warrant this
	approach.

	Additionally NASA needs to reiterate that NASA funding doesnâ€™t support this,
	and NASA has a general concern that this effort expends resources (including
	Secretariat, etc.) for work that is not squarely in the space data systems
	domain.   However, we donâ€™t currently object to other agencies working these
	topics in CCSDS.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cmc/attachments/20080422/92ed41fd/attachment-0001.htm