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

Wed Jan 16 08:46:46 EST 2008

Thanks, Jean-Francois.  I appreciate the response.  

Unless I hear some issues from other CMC members by the end of the week, I will plan on sending the draft memo to the ECSS at the end of the week, along with a note to explain the current status of the liaison poll, etc.  

   -=- Mike

Mike Kearney

NASA MSFC EO-01

256-544-2029

From: Jean-Francois.Kaufeler at esa.int [mailto:Jean-Francois.Kaufeler at esa.int] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 3:30 AM
To: Kearney, Mike W. (MSFC-EO01)
Cc: CCSDS Management Council; cmc-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org; Nestor.Peccia at esa.int
Subject: Re: FW: [Secretariat] [CMC] Draft MOU between CCSDS and ECSS

Mike, 
This MOU is OK with me. You asked for reaction on who should be the PoC form CCSDS side: I agree that it should directly report to CESG (e.g. at similar level as ECSS TA). 
Regards, JFK 

"Kearney, Mike W. (MSFC-EO01)" <Mike.Kearney at nasa.gov> 
Sent by: cmc-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org 

14.01.2008 20:54 

To

"CCSDS Management Council" <cmc at mailman.ccsds.org> 

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>> [attachment "Draft CCSDS-ECSS MOU version 2 -NASA comments        INCORPORATED.doc" deleted by Jean-Francois Kaufeler/esoc/ESA] [attachment "Draft CCSDS-ECSS MOU version 2 -NASA comments MARKED.doc" deleted by Jean-Francois Kaufeler/esoc/ESA] _______________________________________________
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/20080116/6b61e850/attachment.html