[CMC] Re: Partial rectification :RE: IOAG-12 Liaison Statement to CCSDS

[Eduardo W. Bergamini]

Dear Adrian,

Responding to your attached addressing, to the best of my limited 
acquaintance over the very wide scope of your question.

In my understanding, I see no logical or linear correspondence between what 
I had stated in relation to IOAG in association to what you suggested in your 
paraphrasing, in relation to IOP. So far, I see both entities have notable 
different missions between them, probably, in many ways. Therefore, in my 
understanding, your suggested analogy does not apply. At all.

The fact is that, as a HoD to CMC I could learn only from fragmented 
information on what IOP is actually all about. In my condition, I feel a need 
to learn more about IOP. I would believe that we will have this opportunity in 
pertinent discussions, in future CCSDS meetings. 

Certainly passive to corrections, after my cautious and realistic introduction, 
so far, I understand that IOP is a kind of high level, "summit" like forum, aimed 
to promote a conference among different policy making entities which present 
different degrees of unhomogenuity among them, by simple historical origin. 
I understand that, in principle and importantly, IOP forum entities try to get 
acquainted to each other policies in their more openly or not declared 
expectations, that may lead them to gradually (after each IOP event) find 
common ground for multilateral understanding and (high level) agreement that, 
hopefully, may lead some and, hopefully, all of them, much probably under a 
gradual pace, to the certainly desired roads of cross-supportability in space, 
which is necessarily paved by the inalienable principle of interoperability, in 
economically practical terms. Perhaps a IOP could, in first place, be ultimately 
considered as a preliminary stage for a "Cross-Supportability Plenary (or CSP)", 
considering that (economically) practical cross-support can not be achieved 
without (economically) practical interoperability. In this context, under its 
"modest" range of action, I do feel that CCSDS position is a comfortable one,
in spite of its constant and unavoidable struggling for resources. At the same
time, CCSDS has the privilege, since its inception, ~ 27 years ago, to count 
with the experienced competence of those who are capable of pioneering in 
engineering with consequent viable standardizable, already proven solutions, 
for interoperability with concrete consequences, which are directly applicable 
to already proven cross-supportability.

I would see as a natural initiative for CCSDS a direct channel of mutual
correspondence with the Chairman of the current IOP forum. Under its natural 
authority, CCSDS could exercise this privilege. It would probably facilitate
the acquaintance of the IOP forum of the moment with the technology share 
that CCSDS represents for part of the solutiuons which are sought at that 
high level of conference.

IOAG is, securely, an important and fundamental liaison that CCSDS already
honors, for mutual benefit of both entities. A most important correspondence
to be exercised by CCSDS, as defined, years ago, independently of mutual 
limitations in corresponding to ideal expectations, from both sides.

We all know that we live in a very, very complex world. We will be in right 
course we may be able to exercise and add value to each other under realistic
terms. Even so, I have to conceed that still room will be left to the many 
concerned parties, for due consideration ...

Best regards,
Eduardo
INPE/CCSDS

_________________________________________________________________
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Adrian J. Hooke 
  To: Eduardo W. Bergamini 
  Cc: CCSDS Management Council 
  Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 1:02 PM
  Subject: Re: Partial rectification :RE: IOAG-12 Liaison Statement to CCSDS


  At 07:02 AM 11/25/2008, Eduardo W. Bergamini wrote:

    At any moment, it can not be forgotten that the scope of CCSDS 
    Recommendations is not expected to be necessarily fully congruent with those 
    of IOAG.
  Does that therefore logically extend to a statement that "the scope of CCSDS Recommendations is not expected to be necessarily fully congruent with those of the IOP"?

  Best regards
  Adrian
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cmc/attachments/20081126/64d990ad/attachment.htm