[Secretariat] [CMC] Draft MOU between CCSDS and ECSS
Allan, PM (Peter)
P.M.Allan at rl.ac.uk
Wed Jan 16 03:50:03 EST 2008
Jean-Francois,
I agree, which is what the statement now says (I believe).
Peter
________________________________
From: Jean-Francois.Kaufeler at esa.int
[mailto:Jean-Francois.Kaufeler at esa.int]
Sent: 16 January 2008 08:07
To: Allan, PM (Peter)
Cc: CCSDS Management Council; cmc-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org; Kearney,
Mike W. (MSFC-EO01); Nestor.Peccia at esa.int
Subject: RE: [Secretariat] [CMC] Draft MOU between CCSDS and ECSS
Dear Allan,
I believe the liaison statement should not address specifically the ECSS
requirements on the quality of standards but rather on the way we will
interact with them and with which objectives. Any ECSS concern on the
quality of standards should be addressed / relayed through the European
membership of CCSDS. CNES, DLR, ASI, BNSC and ESA are more than welcome
to reflect these concerns in their RIDs, which by the way should be
harmonised by a mechanism being presently discussed within ECSS.
Regards, JFK
"Allan, PM (Peter)" <P.M.Allan at rl.ac.uk>
Sent by: cmc-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org
15.01.2008 10:30
To
"Kearney, Mike W. (MSFC-EO01)" <Mike.Kearney at nasa.gov>, "CCSDS
Management Council" <cmc at mailman.ccsds.org>
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>> _______________________________________________
CMC mailing list
CMC at mailman.ccsds.org
http://mailman.ccsds.org/mailman/listinfo/cmc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cmc/attachments/20080116/bf3ad176/attachment.html
More information about the CMC
mailing list