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

[Soula Jean-Marc]

Dear Mike,
 
sorry for the late response ...
 
I agree with the changes made by NASA with the ECSS-CCSDS MOU.
 
My minor comments are as follows :
- in section II - 5, the word "respective" could be removed : through coordination and joint reviews, the objective is to produce only one text of a standard on a specific subject ; ECSS said that they may consider adopting CCSDS BB as their standard, without any modification.
- section III-4 was added (instead of a section on quality of documents) for reciprocity on agency reviews, I believe : I do not object on the principle to have it added ; just for clarification of my understanding, I think that ECSS recognizes that the place to develop standards in the "Domain" of Space Data Systems should be CCSDS and therefore, if resources are available on the CCSDS side, there is no reason to develop standards on the ECSS side and to call for contributions of the CCSDS experts, the work should be done in CCSDS. The added sentence doesn't hurt, but it should not be a frequent case...
 
In the exchanges of emails, I read some points of view on tailoring and quality of standards.
 
On the tailoring I may confirm that CNES projects do the tailoring and we prefer it is not done at the level of ECSS central project on the basis of an original CCSDS standard ; if the tailoring were made at the level of ECSS and we do our developments based on ECSS standards, we could end up with systems, mainly ground systems, that do not allow cross support with non-European partners, just because a few options were removed from CCSDS original BB and our partner complies with CCSDS. I believe that in the current approach of ECSS they also want to avoid these situations and they aim at being in a position to adopt the CCSDS BB as an ECSS standard without any modification.
 
On the quality of documents, I agree with Jean-François that the process in the MOU should allow the objective but not specifically mention it. I believe this is the case in the current version and I agree with the deletion of the former section III-4.
 
Best regards

Jean-Marc Soula 
CNES - DCT/OP/C-STA 
Advisor, GN Operations 
18 Avenue Edouard Belin 
31401 Toulouse Cedex 9 - France 
Tel.: +33 (0)5 61 2 74647 
Fax.: +33 (0)5 61 2 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 Kearney, Mike W. (MSFC-EO01)
Envoyé : lundi 14 janvier 2008 20:54
À : CCSDS Management Council
Cc : Nestor.Peccia at esa.int
Objet : 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/20080122/76e6e6af/attachment.htm