[CMC] Re: Re:: IOP-2 Agenda - CCSDS Presentation

Mon Nov 17 02:14:32 EST 2008

Adrian,

Sorry, me delay of response. I'm working with spam
mail rescue works.

Thank you so much for your work about page 7.
It looks good for me. I will incorporate your idea
and new figure by half page wide restriction on page 7.
I also agree to combine ISECG and GES in one circle
(other CMC member pointed out same comment).

Let me explain my one comment on your proposal "multilateral
programs". My idea is the program will be generated
throughout ISECG and/or ILN future. Therefore, I would 
like to keep my original wording without "other".

For the dotted line (requirements) on your proposal,
the granularity will be the different for IOAG, CCSDS
and SFCG. 
w/IOAG: ISECG, ILN and Program will recognize the IOAG
the prime point of contact to proceed their comms. &
navigation architecture to respective standardization
requirements.
w/CCSDS: under IOAG advisory, individual requirements
for necessary standardization will be coordinated with
them.
w/SFCG: Spectrum matter will be taking care of with them.
I hope we are on the same page. 

I will distribute Version-2, asap.
I appreciate your continous support and suggestion.

Best Regards,

Narita

----- Original Message -----
$BAw?.<T!'(BAdrian J. Hooke <adrian.j.hooke at jpl.nasa.gov>
$B08 at h!'(Bnarita.kaneaki <narita.kaneaki at jaxa.jp>
$B#C#C!'(BCCSDS Management Council <cmc at mailman.ccsds.org>
$BAw?.F|;~!'(BFri, 14 Nov 2008 09:25:23 -0500
$B7oL>!'(BRe:: IOP-2 Agenda - CCSDS Presentation

> --=====================_6969968==.ALT
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
> At 07:44 AM 11/14/2008, narita.kaneaki wrote:
> >Based on his feedback, I found that there is inconsistency between 
> >page 5, first bullet text and page 7 figure.(Draw direct solid line 
> >between IOAG and GES, ISECG, ILN.)
> Narita-san:  slide 7 seems to conflict with the consensus of the CMC 
> that was expressed in Berlin, i.e., that the CCSDS is an independent 
> organization that takes advice - but not direction - from the IOAG. 
> Indeed, the very name of the IOAG - "Advisory" - reflects this 
> relationship; as does the fact that not all CCSDS agencies are 
> represented on the IOAG.
> Maybe a more accurate picture might be something like the attached, 
> which recognizes that the CCSDS derives its requirements from many sources?
> Best regards
> Adrian
> Adrian J. Hooke
> Chairman, CCSDS Engineering Steering Group (CESG) 
> --=====================_6969968==.ALT
> Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
> <html>
> <body>
> <font color="#0000FF">At 07:44 AM 11/14/2008, narita.kaneaki wrote:<br>
> </font><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
> <font size=2 color="#0000FF">Based on his feedback, I found that there is
> inconsistency between page 5, first bullet text and page 7 figure.(Draw
> direct solid line between IOAG and GES, ISECG,
> ILN.)</font><font size=2></font></blockquote><br>
> Narita-san:&nbsp; slide 7 seems to conflict with the consensus of the CMC
> that was expressed in Berlin, i.e., that the CCSDS is an independent
> organization that takes advice - but not direction - from the IOAG.
> Indeed, the very name of the IOAG - &quot;Advisory&quot; - reflects this
> relationship; as does the fact that not all CCSDS agencies are
> represented on the IOAG.<br><br>
> Maybe a more accurate picture might be something like the attached, which
> recognizes that the CCSDS derives its requirements from many
> sources?<br><br>
> Best regards<br>
> Adrian<br>
> <x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
> <font size=2>Adrian J. Hooke<br>
> Chairman, CCSDS Engineering Steering Group (CESG)</font></body>
> </html>
> --=====================_6969968==.ALT--