[CMC] FW: [Secretariat] [CESG] A new version of the Strategic Plan covering some CMC comments

[Soula Jean-Marc]

Bonjour

the changes made in the first part of the SP are fine with me.

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
De : cmc-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org [mailto:cmc-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] De la part de Kearney, Mike W. (MSFC-EO01)
Envoyé : mardi 1 avril 2014 13:49
À : CCSDS Management Council (CMC at mailman.ccsds.org); Nestor.Peccia at esa.int; Tai, Wallace S (JPL-9000)[Jet Propulsion Laboratory]
Objet : [CMC] FW: [Secretariat] [CESG] A new version of the Strategic Plan covering some CMC comments

CMC Colleagues:  At the request of CESG/Nestor, please respond if you have any issues with Nestor's proposal.  This will allow him to better prepare for the CMC meeting, with disucssions during this Friday's CESG meeting.

Nestor's proposal is that we should agree on the first section (first 12 pages) of high-level material, prior to the "Technical Strategic Goals".  The CESG will be working on the technical strategic goals for some time.  But if the CMC can reach agreement on the first 12 pages, the CESG will be well-positioned to publish the Strategic Plan soon.

So, the question is:  Are there any remaining issues on the first 12 pages (prior to Technical Strategic Goals)?

   -=- Mike

Mike Kearney
Lead Technology Manager
Mission Operations Laboratory
NASA MSFC EO-01
+1-256-544-2029

From: secretariat-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:secretariat-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> [mailto:secretariat-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] On Behalf Of Nestor.Peccia at esa.int<mailto:Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2014 3:40 PM
To: cmc at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cmc at mailman.ccsds.org>
Cc: cesg at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: [Secretariat] [CESG] A new version of the Strategic Plan covering some CMC comments

Dear all,

Please find attached an updated version of the Strategic Plan for internal CMC review, only covering the comments received until (and including) Section " High level Goals".

Why am I doing that ? To facilitate and shorten our discussion during the CESG / CMC meeting. If you can review and agree this new version before 4th April we will reduce the number of items to address.

The following has been done:

  *   Leave Charter as it was originally (deleting purposes 7 and 8)
  *   Create a new section " CCSDS Management, External Relations and Outreach Strategic Goals" including the CMC ERO Goals and text from the last 3 paragraphs added in " High level Goals"  (also considering NASA comments)
  *   Delete the reference to six areas in the section "Standardisation concept" , which are referenced later. There was a reference to the six areas in a previous version but similar text was duplicated in the same section.
  *   Delete the 3 last paragraphs of " overall strategic goals" (as mentioned above)

I have some responses to DLR's comments

  *   general formatting: The purpose is to include the text in the CWE. Foermatting will be checked at that instance
  *   spelling: I will do for Issue 1
to UKSA
" collect requirements" have dissappeared once we return to original charter



The following comments need further discussions at CESG level (4th April 2014). Therefore are not included yet in Draft 14.

CNES comments
Technical goals (page 10 + 11)
* What is the rationale for having "file transfer operations" in goals 2 and 4 ; does it mean that they are independent or that end to end transfers are not planned for cross support ?
@ Peter: Please prepare response  for CESG meeting on 4th April
* System architectures and information architectures were not part of the [technical goal # 6] as handed over by the CMC to the CESG in July 2013 (see attachment). I believe this was a concious omission, following the lack of interest and of resources by the members in the previous initiatives to develop such standards. This addition and the new goal SEA-Goal 8 (page 15) require a specific approval by the CMC.
@ Peter: Please prepare response for CESG meeting on 4th April
* SANA in page 14 should be clarified: either it will remain a WG of the SEA and may then respond to its SEA goals ... or, as I had understood, the WG is disbanded and the SSG is referred to as part of the CCSDS organization and as a Management tool.
@ Peter: Please prepare response  for CESG meeting on 4th April
* CSS goal 4 in page 23 - A future work that says there will be a standard and the tentative title of the standard will be "xxx "would be better than sentences showing that it is not clear what will be produced as long as the BOF doesn't tell us. This should be fixed before the SP is issued.
@  Erik: Please prepare response for CESG meeting on 4th April
* SLS Goal 3 in page 30- there is a text (instead of a document title) when pointing out the future work on the NG SDLP. This generates some ambiguity, e.g. the terms "new" that could be understood as "replacement of the old one (no such decision made - and maybe no agreement that this is the goal) or  "unified" as the NG SDLP may not be more unified as the current SDLP. "NG" or even better, "Enhanced", should be wide enough for the purpose of the SP. Also the domains of application, if listed, are either not agreed, or may later turn out to be restrictive: they should not be mentioned. As the SP is not the right place to justify why items are part of the future work and there are later steps to define the scope and objectives of such work it is estimated that a tentative title of the BB (or suite) and an explanation limited to "higher performance and added security" should be enough for the purpose of the SP.
@  Gippo: Please prepare response for CESG meeting on 4th April

DLR Comments
My point on SAN I cannot verify. SANA is still appearing in the SEA goals (SEA goal 5).
@ Peter: Please prepare response  for CESG meeting on 4th April
Beside that I have beside general formatting an spelling issues - I think, someone will have a look on these if the comments are agreed, I have to issues:

First, for my knowledge ISO is no longer going for three year reviews, so we should only keep five year reviews in the text
@ Tom: Please prepare response  for CESG meeting on 4th April
and second, we should already generate book numbers for those books which are already listed in the plan.
@ Tom: Please prepare response  for CESG meeting on 4th April

ciao
nestor

This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee or addressees only.

The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in whole or in part) of its

content is not permitted.

If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system.

Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the sender.



Please consider the environment before printing this email.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cmc/attachments/20140401/880521d3/attachment-0001.htm