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

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

Jean Marc, while I would have done a completely different chart to illustrate this (see my earlier submission), I have to agree with Adrian and Narita that for this type of layout, this illustration is as good as it will get.   

 

I recognize that there are not currently lines from ISECG and ILN to CCSDS, but neither are there lines to IOAG (yet).  So the "accurate" alternative is to take them off the chart.  However, there is something of a proposal in this chart for how things *should* work.  I believe, because the IOAG is limited to Space Comm and Nav topics, that some supplemental dialogue between CCSDS and those multi-agency forums will be necessary.  At best only the SCaN topics can "channel" through IOAG.  MOIMS, SOIS and some other subsets will have to be direct interaction between those forums and CCSDS.   

 

You are correct that the IOP may look at it and decide to restructure it.  If they do, they will have to address how the non-SCaN needs are communicated.  Either by revamping the IOAG to include more responsibilities, or allow the channels outside of the IOAG.   Either of those are acceptable.  The current chart reflects no change in the scope of the IOAG, and the IOAG has demonstrated in their response to our communiqué that they don't want CCSDS telling them what their scope is.   

 

   -=- 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 Soula Jean-Marc
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 4:11 PM
To: Adrian J. Hooke; narita.kaneaki
Cc: CCSDS Management Council
Subject: [Secretariat] RE : [CMC] Re:: IOP-2 Agenda - CCSDS Presentation

 

Adrian,

 

I don't believe that the right hand part of your proposed slide is true or at least it is ambiguous :

- requirements do not come to CCSDS in a structured way from ISECG, ILN or Programmes : no existing liaison

- personnels who contribute to those organizations, when they speak in CCSDS, generally do it on behalf of their agency and not that organization 

 

Moreover, the global confusion, concerning the paths of requirements and who is speaking on behalf of who, will invite the IOP to really structure this ... very likely thru IOAG.

 

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 Adrian J. Hooke
	Envoyé : vendredi 14 novembre 2008 15:25
	À : narita.kaneaki
	Cc : CCSDS Management Council
	Objet : [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) 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cmc/attachments/20081117/dbd6295e/attachment.html