[Sls-rfm] Revised recs on TTFRs

[Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int]

Tom,

the editorial change agreement involved ESA, NASA, DLR, FSA, CNSA that 
were present at the meeting. Only one of the agencies contributing (or 
that contributed in the past) to RFM was not present.

Submitting 10 recs with editorial changes only to agency review is a waste 
of the scarce resources we have. However, I agree with you that adding two 
recommends even if void of specs changes the perception.

I want to try demoting these changes to non-normative footnotes. If I 
succeed and the WG agrees with me, we can proceed as I prefer otherwise we 
go along with your proposal.

Regards, Enrico



From:   "Thomas Gannett" <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>
To:     <Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int>, <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>
Cc:     "'Lee, Dennis K \(332G\)'" <dennis.k.lee at jpl.nasa.gov>, "'Gilles 
Moury'" <Gilles.Moury at cnes.fr>, <sls-rfm at mailman.ccsds.org>
Date:   25/05/2017 17:03
Subject:        RE: Revised recs on TTFRs



Since the proposed changes appear to be instigated or at least inspired by 
the new draft recommendation 2.6.11A, which needs to go to agency review, 
it seems to me to be entirely appropriate to include the changed pages in 
that review. If there is rationale for not allowing the agencies to review 
the changes, when they have to review 2.6.11A anyway, it eludes me. I 
think sometimes people forget that the CCSDS is made up of eleven member 
agencies (not just ESA and/or NASA) and that it is a consensus 
organization. 
 
 
Thomas Gannett
thomas.gannett at tgannett.net
+1 443 472 0805
 
From: Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int [mailto:Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int] 
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 8:58 AM
To: Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int
Cc: Lee, Dennis K (332G); Gilles Moury; sls-rfm at mailman.ccsds.org; Tom 
Gannett
Subject: Re: Revised recs on TTFRs
 
I will work something out next Monday.
 
Rgds

Enrico's phone

On May 24, 2017, at 22:56, Gian Paolo Calzolari <
Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int> wrote:


Enrico Vassallo/esoc/ESA wrote on 24/05/2017 08:51:21:

> Do I take it that you do not want to include the 10 editorially 
> revised recs on TTFRs but want do an agency review on them? 

Enrico, 
as you know the CCSDS Editor has already stated that the current 
formulation does not fit for the Editorial Corrigendum but rather for 
Agency Review due (mainly [IMHO]) to the two new recommended requirements.

> 
> I could propose to the WG to remove the two additional considerings 
> and recommends and add a generic footnote about digital 
> implementation if this can avoid agency review of editorials !!! Of 
> course, this would have to be done also for the new rec just approved 
for AR.
> 
> Please advise, Enrico 
> 

I guess that in case the additions can be converted to a NON normative 
NOTE/paragraph the Editorial Corrigendum can be tried.
Tom, copied here, may suggest the best (and fastest) form for it (if WG 
agrees).

Regards

Gian Paolo
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.
 
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.




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/sls-rfm/attachments/20170529/8b6b5672/attachment.html>