Fw: [Sis-exec]

[Robert C. Durst]

OK, I guess I declared war.  I disapproved without condition, with the
following comments:

At best this should be balloted as a BCP, and at that point I'd have to
consider further whether I'd approve it as such. It should not be a standard
(although I'd be interested in seeing two independently developed
implementations interoperate), and I'm not at all convinced that putting
this into practice will be a productive employment of CMC resources. As one
of my area members aptly put it" "...I am concerned that we could be
required to use this notation and terminology whenever explaining anything
in any future CCSDS recommendation. I think this would be intolerable: I
find it not to be particularly good, nor particularly clear, notation and
terminology, which means that adopting this book could displace clearer
conceptual explication in CCSDS documents for years to come." 

-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian J. Hooke [mailto:adrian.j.hooke at jpl.nasa.gov] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 7:02 PM
To: Durst,Robert C.
Subject: Re: Fw: [Sis-exec]


>>I would be okay with this draft if that one word were changed to "should"

agree. BCP at best.

Adrian, a BCP is still potentially binding on WGs within CCSDS.  "Should" is
weaker, but "no" is a more appropriate expression of the SIS area's feeling
on this.