SAC-SWG-ENUM Archives

May 2019

SAC-SWG-ENUM@DISCUSSIONS.SISOSTDS.ORG

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Marrou, Lance R." <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
SAC-SWG-ENUM <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 8 May 2019 15:08:03 +0000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (1 lines)
Need some discussion perhaps on some points and needs an actual proposal.  The text in the definition of change section is certainly not appropriate for the OPMAN or SISO-REF-010.  As I understand it, what is being asked is that we create a process for handling ballistic missile (BM) enumerations that will require that they be submitted to the Missile Defense Agency (MDA).  All of the comments about master class list (MCL) aren't useful because unless they make the MCL public, any references to it won't be made in our documentation.  Also, no references will be made to either SIPRnet or NIPRnet, as members will never be expected to use those.


One of the foundational concepts here is that when a SISO member wants an enumeration, that member is only concerned about public information. U.S. national agencies (and their contractors) can certainly follow the MDA process, but no one outside that group can, and there are many. The MDA needs to be ready to handle requests from anyone in the world, without restriction.

If that concept is unpalatable, then perhaps it can be modified somewhat such that a member instead starts with the last step in Fig 2 (as normal for enumerations) and instead, a reviewer who is more suitable for liaison with the MDA coordinate the enumerations by following the rest of the process. The requirement that the enumerations group NOT change any BM enumerations without working with the MDA is probably the main point here, though, and can still be followed. This means, the CR request is submitted to SISO, a liaison brings it to the MDA following Fig 2, and then coordinates changes (if any) back to SISO, including the "approval" of the enumerations from the MDA.

The other possible problem I see is that as of now, we don't know if the MCL is baselined against a SISO-REF-010 version. If not, then there could be significant conflicts and resolving those will be problematic. It will not be as easy as just changing SISO enumerations if they have been there for 25+ years. What I hope to see happen, here, though, is that the MDA is willing to work with SISO (or some subset of members like perhaps myself and David) to get a consolidated baseline of BM enumerations between the MCL and SISO-REF-010 v26. I don't know what we will find, but the idea is to work through the issues (if any).

Lance Marrou, Leidos, [log in to unmask]
12901 Science Drive, Orlando, Florida USA 32826, o: 407.243.3710


-----Original Message-----
From: SAC-SWG-ENUM <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of David Ronnfeldt
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2019 11:56 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: CR proposal for ballistic missile changes

I don't have a problem with this proposal. It proposes a change on how ballistic missile's would be reviewed.

It would require an update to the OPMAN to add this information, and I would like to add a toolset addition that would include a check to ensure the steps have been followed prior to proceeding.

I would appreciate other feedback before I recommend this for approval.

Regards,

David Ronnfeldt

########################################################################

To unsubscribe from the SAC-SWG-ENUM list, click the following link:
https://discussions.sisostds.org/index.htm?SUBED1=SAC-SWG-ENUM&A=1

########################################################################

To unsubscribe from the SAC-SWG-ENUM list, click the following link:
https://discussions.sisostds.org/index.htm?SUBED1=SAC-SWG-ENUM&A=1

ATOM RSS1 RSS2