[Css-rasg] RE: Overlaps assessment

Fri Feb 18 19:50:26 EST 2011

Mario,

This is a splendid idea. I can and will gladly book a separate conference room at JPL so that we may in fact have something of a short interim RASG/SM+C coordination meeting.   I will send you a proposal for the session.

Best regards,

-Erik 

-----Original Message-----
From: Mario.Merri at esa.int [mailto:Mario.Merri at esa.int] 
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 3:24 AM
To: Barkley, Erik J (317H)
Cc: CCSDS RASG; Nestor Peccia; Shames, Peter M (313B)
Subject: RE: Overlaps assessment

Erik, sorry for not getting back to you earlier on this.

Why don't we try to earmark one hour during my visit to JPL? Otherwise, do
you plan to attend GSAW.

Regards,

__Mario

  From:       "Barkley, Erik J (317H)" <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>                                 

  To:         "Mario.Merri at esa.int" <Mario.Merri at esa.int>                                            

  Cc:         CCSDS RASG <CSS-RASG at mailman.ccsds.org>, Nestor Peccia <Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>,        
              "Shames, Peter M (313B)" <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>                                 

  Date:       11/02/2011 02:05                                                                       

  Subject:    RE: Overlaps assessment                                                                

Hello Mario,

And now, my apologies again for such a slow reply -- I continue to be
overwhelmed with other NASA and/or JPL affairs.

For "scoring" please read "classifications selected" -- in other words, for
example referring to the spreadsheet, Recommendation 1 is categorized as an
existing overlap, that the overlap involves vocabulary (common terms), that
there is an interface involved, etc.  To re-iterate from my previous email
this scoring is not terribly important to me as I believe the key aspect is
to make progress with regard to the plan forward notes developmed during the
London meetings.

My sense is that most if not all of the items in the plan forward have in
fact stalled -- there were some initial steps that showed some promising
draft results -- e.g, recommendation #2 (about harmonizing interaction
patterns) had some good initial analysis done in terms of aligning the
concepts for the various CCSDS recommendations related to messaging.  There
are several other actions (e.g,   Lindolfo promised information on AMS/MAL
binding), etc., and I think that in general we should aim for having good
information for as many recommendations as we can by the time of the spring
meetings.

May I suggest either Wednesday 16 February or Friday 18 February at 15:00 UTC
(700 Los Angeles, 1600 Darmstadt) for a one hour telecon to help coordinate
and revitalize this effort?

Best regards,

-Erik

-----Original Message-----
From: Mario.Merri at esa.int [mailto:Mario.Merri at esa.int]
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 8:51 AM
To: Barkley, Erik J (317H)
Cc: CCSDS RASG; Nestor Peccia; Shames, Peter M (313B)
Subject: Re: Overlaps assessment

Hi Erik,

happy new year to you an apology for the slow reaction ... there are so many
things to do that I'm in trouble!

I have looked at the attachments and I am not sure I understand what do you
mean with "scoring": I see no scoring in the documents.

Indeed a telecon could clarify the issue, including the uncertainty in Plan
Forward (what is exactly proposed, who does it and by when?).

Ciao

__Mario

  From:       "Barkley, Erik J (317H)" <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>

  To:         Mario Merri <Mario.Merri at esa.int>

  Cc:         CCSDS RASG <CSS-RASG at mailman.ccsds.org>, Nestor Peccia
<Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>, "Shames, Peter M (313B)"
              <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>

  Date:       08/01/2011 03:27

  Subject:    Overlaps assessment

Dear Mario,

Happy New Year.

At the CMC/CESG London meetings I was obligated to prepare a report on the
RASG activities. Part of the RASG activities as you may recall from our
London meetings was to develop an approach forward for the various overlap
items identified. I believe I sent you the "raw" spreadsheet which had the
items identified and the plan that we had developed as a result of the joint
meetings. However I don't think this had the various scoring denotations
which was used in developing the summary status position for CMC. I had to
develop the scoring rather quickly and unfortunately did not really have time
to close the loop with you prior to delivering my reports to CMC.  For your
information, attached are the pertinent slides extracted from the
presentation to CMC.  Note that this was presented as a draft to CMC. I'm
finally getting around to closing the loop with you which is something I
meant to do quite some time ago but other NASA work has kept me mightily
preoccupied since the London meetings.  So if you could please let me know if
you have any serious issues with the scoring that would be appreciated.   The
.xlsx scoring file is also attached.

In some regards, but not to dismiss it, I don't think the scoring is terribly
important so long as we make progress with regard to the plan moving forward.
Hence the real point of my e-mail here is to re-establish contact with regard
to these issues.  I would like to propose a teleconference for some time in
the first part of February. If nothing else I believe we should check on the
status of the various actions/plans, see where we are with regard to the
ExoMars architecture description development, etc.

Best regards,

-Erik

 [attachment "Extracted-Slides-d1-RASIG-Report-to-CMC-Nov-2010.pptx" deleted
by Mario Merri/esoc/ESA] [attachment "d3-Overlaps-Tabulation-03-Nov-2010.xls"
deleted by Mario Merri/esoc/ESA]