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

[Martin Pilgram]

Mike,
my point of view, as I already told Adrian is that we as CCSDS should 
accept IOAG as a focal point at least for communication issues coming up 
in the space community. Therefore I do not support a direct link between 
ILN and CCSDS.
Another item on your picture is IOP. CCSDS has no link to IOP. If we can 
present our view on IOP-2 it is perfect for CCSDS, but we should clearly 
have in mind, what IOP is: more or less a stearing board for IOAG.

regards
Martin


Kearney, Mike W. (MSFC-NASA) schrieb:
>
> I have been working on some proposed changes that I will send later 
> today that make the point more strongly that the CCSDS has a broader 
> scope than the IOAG. However, for this specific point, I had 
> previously developed the attached slide.
>
> By addressing the output of CCSDS to “customers”, CCSDS goes at the 
> top of the hierarchy, not the bottom. It is implicit (it goes without 
> saying) that we take inputs (requirements) from those same customers. 
> But the more critical point is what we provide and who we provide it to.
>
> Also, by listing the agencies participating in CCSDS, we make a strong 
> point that there are many more agencies than the IOAG/IOP agencies 
> that participate, and also that depend on CCSDS output.
>
> Narita, I will provide you this and other suggested updates later 
> today (I hope) in a more integrated fashion.
>
> -=- Mike
>
> Mike Kearney
>
> NASA MSFC EO-01
>
> 256-544-2029
>
> *From:* secretariat-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org 
> [mailto:secretariat-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] *On Behalf Of *Adrian 
> J. Hooke
> *Sent:* Friday, November 14, 2008 8:25 AM
> *To:* narita.kaneaki
> *Cc:* CCSDS Management Council
> *Subject:* [Secretariat] [CMC] Re:: IOP-2 Agenda - CCSDS Presentation
>
> 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)
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> CMC mailing list
> CMC at mailman.ccsds.org
> http://mailman.ccsds.org/mailman/listinfo/cmc
>   


-- 

RB-KB – Martin Pilgram

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

* DLR – GSOC ( ++49 (0)8153 / 28 - 1266
Abteilung: RB-KB È ++49 (0)172) / 2902310
Oberpfaffenhofen 3 ++49 (0)8153 / 28 - 1092
82234 Weßling : martin.pilgram at dlr.de
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 6114 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cmc/attachments/20081117/4ba393bd/smime.bin