[CMC] RE: A pondering.

[Kearney, Mike W. (MSFC-NASA)]

Eduardo:  Thank you for your message, especially the last part of your third paragraph.  

 

We all know that affordable cross-support can be hardly attained, if any, to the extent it is not preceeded 

by interoperable resources, independently of policies, personal preferences and influences. Not to mention politics, by itself.

 

I would simplify that to "Affordable cross support will not be attained if it is not preceded by interoperable resources."  A very crystal-clear and succinct statement of the mission and impact of CCSDS.    I hope you don't mind if I use it.   

 

I too have hopes that increasing cooperation with the IOP community (including the IOAG) will foster the dream of worldwide (actually solar system wide) interoperability.  However, as you saw in my earlier note, while I recognize the IOAG as a *very* important customer, perhaps the *most* important *single* customer, CCSDS also answers to other customers as well.   Primarily the CCSDS agencies that participate, but ISO and perhaps other multi-agency forums as well.  In any case, I think CCSDS should keep their options open in that regard.   

 

   -=- Mike

 

Mike Kearney

NASA MSFC EO-01

256-544-2029

 

 

From: Eduardo W. Bergamini [mailto:e.w.bergamini at uol.com.br] 
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 9:10 PM
To: Kearney, Mike W. (MSFC-NASA)
Cc: cmc at mailman.ccsds.org; Adrian J. Hooke; Marco Antonio Chamon
Subject: A pondering.

 

Dear Mike,

 

I am naturally following the long series of correspondence on the CCSDS

related preparation of a presentation for the coming IOP-2 event. It made

me recall a series of events that led to the current situation we can observe. 

 

For instance, it is vivid in my memory the many discussions we had during

and after that first "joint" CCSDS/CMC-IOAG meeting that was held in CNES

a few years ago, in that same room (Poincaré building) where the SpaceOps

series of meetings were held, in Toulouse, last month. That "joint" 

CCSDS/CMC-IOAG meeting, as I still understand it, continues to be an 

important one because it paved the way for a common, although evolving, 

understanding and for a joint action between the two entities. Which I could 

consistently observe, in recent years, under a healthy initiative, from my 

(limited, because INPE is not an IOAG member, so far) point of view.

 

However, reading the recent correspondence which I mentioned in the first 

paragraph, I must admit that some of the principles that have been guiding 

our CMC interaction, fundamented by those initial CMC resolutions, seem to 

be somewhat faded in our current context. I feel that it is probably time for 

the CMC bring the theme back up to discussion in its coming meeting for a 

review and for an update of the CMC consensus which was reached in the 

beginning, in respect to the CCSDS relationship to IOAG. I mention it not only

for the sake of consistency with our memory but also due to an evident need 

we have to rediscuss the subject, possibly, on grounds of probable new 

approachs that may be simply required for consideration, in view of the natural 

sequence of events. It is, for instance, very firm in my memory that, at no 

moment so far, there was a consensus in CCSDS CMC on a formal hierarchy 

between CCSDS and IOAG. At the same time, it is also clear to me, since the 

beginning, that the relationship between CCSDS and IOAG has been a most 

fortunate evolution in the process of those concerned, in the many levels of 

the pertinent authority of the community, with the very basic paradigm of 

interoperability. Not to mention, cross-support. We all know that affordable 

cross-support can be hardly attained, if any, to the extent it is not preceeded 

by interoperable resources, independently of policies, personal preferences

and influences. Not to mention politics, by itself.

 

If CCSDS access to IOP-2 is being materialized under support by IOAG

community, in principle, this is not contradictory, as a result from the good 

willing that we certainly observe among some of our colleagues which are part 

of both communities. I would dream, why not ? Of CCSDS joining, as viable, 

efforts in concert with IOAG and IOP for the benefit of worldwide interoperability 

and cross-support. Who can pay for less than that ? I am sure that there are 

ways, be it, long or not so long, to get to this type of association. However, 

at the same time, under the actual terms that CCSDS is governed by, since its 

creation, in principle, I would not see any impedement that may preclude CCSDS 

from reaching the IOP community, even if this may result from a formal request 

to that forum. To the best of my acquaintance, I would understand that the 

sovereignity of CCSDS, inclusive in this respect, is being preserved to this point 

in time, under the existing terms based on its original constitution. It is very vivid 

in my mind the principle of equal opportunity to its members that motivated the 

creation of CCSDS since its very beginning. We did come a long way, under this 

very principle, with outstanding realizations of the CCSDS community, I do believe, 

with only minor disturbances. Let us hope that it will be kept this way. This does 

not mean, at all, that updates to the CCSDS process are not required. Constantly.

I understand that this has been faced as part of a must of the CCSDS business, 

in a best possible way.

 

Thank you for your attention to my pondering, on the above subject.

 

With my best regards,

Eduardo

INPE/CCSDS

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cmc/attachments/20081117/80b3bd9b/attachment.html