[Sis-csi] Re: CCSDS Cislunar Architecture Book CESG RIDs -- RID2

[Jean-Luc.Gerner at esa.int]

Keith,

Sorry to look nitty-gritty, but again I believe it is in the interest of
CCSDS credibility to keep being rigourous. The GBs should look clearly as
being information documents only. It is not the case today. A reader that is
not very familiar with CCSDS rules and procedures can very easily take a GB
as being an approved recommended standard.
The whole problem is that this book is NOT a Green Book as it is not
supporting a book in the standards track. A GB describes features that have
been approved through a BB or magenta book approval process. It is not the
case here. I suggested Adrian to create a new colour but he was not
supportive.
According to CCSDS Restructuring Rules A02.1-Y-0.2, a GB cannot be developed
in support of an Orange Book as the latter is not in the standards track
either.
Likewise, you mention that:
"The working group's next work item is to provide protocol profiles for
various classes of missions.  These will develop into (most likely
Orange) books ..."
It is NOT the task of a WG to develop an Orange Book. An OB is developed by a
single agency and submitted by that agency for inclusion in the CCSDS
library.

The foreword in the draft Cislunar green book says (1st sentence):
"This document is a CCSDS Informational Report to assist readers in
understanding the
Spacecraft Onboard Interface Services (SOIS) documentation."  (I take
reference to SOIS is a typo)
This sentence states clearly that this document is in support to the reader
in understanding actually the recommended standards ... that don't exist. So,
the standard foreword used for all GBs is not applicable to the Cislunar GB.

I know my proposal in my RID is not ideal and I am ready to discuss other
solutions. I would agree instead to adding this sentence:
"This book is an informational book that must not be considered as a
recommended standard. It has not been endorsed by CCSDS agencies"
in bold and large fonds.
This would allow to keep the authority page as is.

Kind regards

Jean-Luc Gerner
TEC-ETN
Tel: +31 71 565 4473


                                                                             
             "Scott, Keith L."                                               
             <kscott at mitre.org>                                              
                                                                          To 
             05/04/2007 18:24           jean-luc.gerner at esa.int              
                                                                          cc 
                                        sis-csi at mailman.ccsds.org, "Durst,   
                                        Robert C." <durst at mitre.org>         
                                                                     Subject 
                                        CCSDS Cislunar Architecture Book     
                                        CESG RIDs -- RID2                    
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             




Jean-Luc,

You proposed changing the text on page (i):

From

"This document has been approved for publication by the Management
Council of the Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS)
and reflects the consensus of technical working group experts from
CCSDS Member Agencies."

To

"This document has been approved for publication by the Management
Council of the Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS)
and reflects the consensus of technical working group experts from some
CCSDS Member Agencies."


===========


I think the text you reference is in the 'boilerplate' standard
template for all CCSDS Recommendations.  Further, I would think that
while such a change could be applied to the majority of CCSDS
Recommendations, it would weaken all of them and dilute the consensus
process that CCSDS uses to resolve differences.

In your supporting analysis, you say that you fear the Green Book may
achieve a de-facto higher status in the absence of supported standards.
The working group's next work item is to provide protocol profiles for
various classes of missions.  These will develop into (most likely
Orange) books that will contain the best possible technical
recommendations, and which can themselves be updates as new solutions
arise.  As real (experimental) recommendations, these Orange books and
their descendants would take precedence over the Architecture (Green)
book.


Given these reasons, I would like to recommend that the Cislunar WG
respectfully reject this RID.  Would this be acceptable to you?


        Best Regards,

            --keith



Keith Scott
Chair, CCSDS Cislunar Space Internetworking Working Group
+1.703.983.6547 (voice)
+1.703.983.7142 (Fax)
kscott at mitre.org