[Secretariat] [CMC] Draft MOU between CCSDS and ECSS

Tue Jan 15 10:53:13 EST 2008

Thanks for the response, Peter.  It is interesting that your MARKED
version comes up with "Final" as default versus "Final showing markup".
I checked the copy that I sent, and for me it comes up showing the
markup by default.  It may be a local configuration thing.   

I think you're correct that the degree of tailorability (is that a
word?) is an issue between us and ECSS.   As we discussed at the last
meeting, we are hoping that the PICS-Proforma approach helps that issue,
as well as bringing other benefits to CCSDS interests.  The most
critical thing is to head toward the "CCSDS vision" of the correct
answer for the degree of tailoring that is best for our agencies,
programs and missions.  We should change that approach only if it is the
correct answer for our needs, not just to "line up" with ECSS.  

For the scenario that you asked about, I think that most agencies would
approach the tailoring job as their internal systems engineering duties,
do it within the programs, and issue the resulting tailoring as part of
a contract.  However, the key thing is that we leave it to the programs
to choose what is best for them.  And we don't do their program-internal
systems engineering for them.  

I'm glad you were OK with the changes we proposed.  Looking forward to a
similar response from other members.  

   -=- Mike

Mike Kearney

NASA MSFC EO-01

256-544-2029

From: Allan, PM (Peter) [mailto:P.M.Allan at rl.ac.uk] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 3:30 AM
To: Kearney, Mike W. (MSFC-EO01); CCSDS Management Council
Cc: Nestor.Peccia at esa.int
Subject: RE: [Secretariat] [CMC] Draft MOU between CCSDS and ECSS

Mike,

Firstly a comment on the two documents attached. They print off
identically apart from my query about the PoC. From your comments it
seems that you meant the "NASA comments MARKED" version to have the
comments visible. People need to change the presentation from "Final" to
"Final Showing Markup" to see the comments.

>From the changes that have been made, it seems that my original draft
veered too much to the ECSS position and I agree that the current draft
is better. However, I think the changes highlight the fact that we do
generate standards that we expect to be tailored and ECSS are less happy
with that. I can see that being an issue in discussions with ECSS. One
point I am unsure about is whether a mission that uses ECSS standards
would expect to have the tailoring done by the central project and then
let contracts on the basis of the tailored standard, or would expect the
contractor to do the tailoring. I don't see that necessarily affecting
the document directly, but it helps us to understand the ECSS position.

Can others comment on that?

Peter

----------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Dr. Peter M. Allan 
Head, Space Data Division 
Space Science and Technology Department 
Science and Technology Facilities Council 
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory 
Harwell Science and Innovation Campus 
Didcot 
Oxfordshire OX11 0QX 
England 

e-mail: p.m.allan at rl.ac.uk 
Tel: +44 (1235) 445723       fax: +44 (1235) 446667 

________________________________

From: cmc-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org
[mailto:cmc-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] On Behalf Of Kearney, Mike W.
(MSFC-EO01)
Sent: 14 January 2008 19:54
To: CCSDS Management Council
Cc: Nestor.Peccia at esa.int
Subject: FW: [Secretariat] [CMC] Draft MOU between CCSDS and ECSS

CMC colleagues:  We have had some delays on the ECSS activity for a
number of reasons.  I am trying to pick it up and get it moving along
again.   

As you know from the activity of last week, the CMC poll to admit ECSS
as a Liaison organization was extended due to confusion over the
announcement for the poll.  We expect the poll to be approved on Jan
24th.  

Peter's draft of the MOU was sent out on October 31, and although things
seemed quiet, NASA has been working with it.  I have attached two
versions with NASA-proposed changes.  One has the NASA comments MARKED,
but because of the changes it is difficult to read.  So I have also
included a version with the NASA comments INCORPORATED, which is easier
to read.    

Our critical comments were related to the position that CCSDS still
wants to put out "tailorable" documents, and we do not want to create
special products specifically for ECSS coordination.  We believe that
the coordination with ECSS should be largely met with existing
processes.  (One exception:  We still need a good system for announcing
new work items to ECSS, SC14 and others).   We have added comments which
will hopefully explain our proposed changes.   And since all known
responses agreed with Peter's question about the CESG being the POC, I
removed the red question from the draft.  

As I understand our plan forward, we do not intend to need a CMC poll
before delivering a draft to ECSS.  After ECSS responds that they agree
with a draft, we will then approve it through a CMC poll.  

Therefore, unless someone responds with some issues, this is the plan
forward:   

*         (Within a few days) I will write a short status note to ECSS

*         (Several weeks) CMC settles on a proposed draft to send to
ECSS

*         (Feb) We send the plan to ECSS

*         (TBD) ECSS responds and we are "go" to poll

*         (TBD) CMC votes on a poll for the ECSS liaison statement

*         (June) Further issues or coordination can be taken up at the
CMC meeting in Japan.   

So, please let us know if you have any concerns or suggestions for
improvement to the draft.  

Many thanks to Peter Allen for getting us started with such a thorough
draft of the statement.    

   -=- Mike

Mike Kearney

NASA MSFC EO-01

256-544-2029

-----Original Message-----

From: secretariat-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org
[mailto:secretariat-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] On Behalf Of Allan, PM
(Peter)

Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 10:40 AM

To: CCSDS Management Council

Subject: [Secretariat] [CMC] Draft MOU between CCSDS and ECSS

Attached is my attempt at writing an MOU between CCSDS and ECSS. I have
taken the earlier draft MOU and rewritten sections 2, 3 and 4 to reflect
the discussion we had in Darmstadt.

I am not really sure we need all of section 1, after all, we both know
who we are, but it was there, so I left it in for now.

There is one point I am unsure about, so I have put a question in red in
the body of the text.

Comments please.

Peter

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

Dr. Peter M. Allan

Head, Space Data Division

Space Science and Technology Department

Science and Technology Facilities Council Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
Harwell Science and Innovation Campus Didcot Oxfordshire OX11 0QX
England

e-mail: p.m.allan at rl.ac.uk

Tel: +44 (1235) 445723       fax: +44 (1235) 446667

 <<Draft MOU.doc>> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cmc/attachments/20080115/8729a07e/attachment.html