[CMC] Re: [Secretariat] [CESG] RE : Information: Draft CCSDS Technical response to IOAG Resolution 12.9.1

[Adrian J. Hooke]

At 04:38 PM 4/25/2009, Soula Jean-Marc wrote:
>I acknowledge receipt of two emails from each of 
>you, on the same subject but also apparently  with the same attachment.
>Could you please confirm the attachment is the 
>same in all 4 email or advise which one should be considered ?

Jean-Marc: the attachments are identical. Nestor 
and I both sent the same file separately to 
underscore th fact that it was a multilateral 
technical agreement that represents the consensus of many different parties.

>Then I will distribute it to IOAG for review. My 
>idea is to assign an action to IOAG members 
>after this is validated by the CMC (next week), 
>and then make it an agenda item for the upcoming mini-IOAG meeting (mid may).

Correct. We sent the agreed technical position to 
you and to the SISG co-chairs for your advance 
information, on the understanding that it was 
pre-decisional and that the CMC needs to review 
and ratify it. We will present this material to 
the CMC on Tuesday with a request that CCSDS 
should issue a formal communique back to the 
IOAG. If the CMC agrees, it is hoped that the 
IOAG can react at their May meeting so that the 
SISG can be re-focused in time for us to proceed 
under new guidelines by our June face-face meeting.

>According to the short notice, I'm not sure a 
>decision may be made then but at list the point 
>is discussed and a due date will be assigned, 
>taking into account next SISG events (mid june 
>?). Would that match your expectations ?

We think that it is imperative for the IOAG to 
act on this matter quite urgently. Since 
December, the work of the SISG has been diverted 
by the ambiguous formulation of R12.9.1.  The 
CCSDS team believes that we have teased-apart the 
intent of 12.9.1 in a way that is satisfactory to 
everyone. However, we need that clarification to 
be confirmed by the IOAG at the earliest possible 
opportunity, otherwise it will be unlikely that 
we can have anything meaningful to present by the 
IOAG-13 meeting (which is unfortunately timed, 
given its close proximity to the summer holidays).

Best regards
Adrian

>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : Hooke, Adrian J. (HQ-CG000)[JPL] [mailto:adrian.j.hooke at nasa.gov]
>Envoyé : vendredi 24 avril 2009 06:39
>À : Soula Jean-Marc
>Cc : Rush, John J. (HQ-CG000); 
>Klaus-juergen.schulz at esa.int; CCSDS Management 
>Council; CCSDS Engineering Steering Group
>Objet : Information: Draft CCSDS Technical response to IOAG Resolution 12.9.1
>
>
>23 April 2009, Colorado Springs, 
>USA
>
>TO:       IOAG Chair:                    Jean-Marc Soula/CNES
>CC:        IOAG-SISG 
>co-chairs:       Klaus-Juergen Schulz/ESA and John Rush/NASA
>FROM:    CCSDS-CESG co-chairs:    Nestor Peccia/ESA and Adrian Hooke/NASA
>
>Jean-Marc: in our roles as co-chairs of the 
>CCSDS Engineering Steering Group and as joint 
>CCSDS Technical  Liaisons to the IOAG, we 
>convened a small ad-hoc group of CCSDS technical 
>experts during the CCSDS Spring 2009 meeting in 
>Colorado Springs in order to develop a draft 
>CCSDS technical response to IOAG Resolution R12.9.1.
>
>The consensus technical position of this ad-hoc 
>CCSDS Group is attached. The CCSDS participants 
>who contributed and agreed to this position are 
>as follows: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Erik 
>Barkley - NASA/JPL Fred Brosi - NASA GSFC/JPL 
>Scott Burleigh - NASAJPL Gian-Paolo Calzolari - 
>ESA ESOC Matt Cosby - BNSC/QinetiQ Yves Doat - 
>ESA ESOC Bob Durst - NASA/Mitre (telecon) 
>Wolfgang Hell - ESA ESOC Adrian Hooke - NASA HQ 
>Dave Israel - NASA GSFC Greg Kazz - NASA JPL 
>Mike Kearney - NASA MSFC Jane Marquart - 
>NASA  GSFC John Pietras - NASA GSFC/JPL Nestor 
>Peccia - ESA ESOC Martin Pilgram - DLR Keith 
>Scott  - NASA/MITRE Peter Shames - NASA JPL 
>Jason Soloff - NASA/JSC Dai Stanton 
>-  ESA/Keltik Chris Taylor - ESA ESTEC Takahiro 
>Yamada - JAXA ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>We will present this draft CCSDS position to the 
>CCSDS Management Council next week with a 
>request for their formal concurrence. Meanwhile, 
>we informally transmit this draft technical 
>position to you for your information and consideration.
>
>Best regards,
>Nestor Peccia
>Adrian Hooke
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cmc/attachments/20090426/b890b5dd/attachment.html