13.07.2015 Views

DRAFT IS-GPS-705A Comment Resolution Matrix - GPS.gov

DRAFT IS-GPS-705A Comment Resolution Matrix - GPS.gov

DRAFT IS-GPS-705A Comment Resolution Matrix - GPS.gov

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

<strong>IS</strong>-<strong>GPS</strong>-705 CRMCID Originator/Org. Page/Para Importance <strong>Comment</strong> PO <strong>Resolution</strong> & Concurrence NotesassumptionsFinal To: Provide a document of some kindrejection.regarding UEidentifying common/redundant requirements in Rationale:correlation200/705/800 so that reviewers know what thecharacteristicsPOC is intending to manage as commonused to makepseudorangeRationale: Previous comments to removemeasurementsredundancies by having 705 and 800 simply referand ato 200 have been rejected or deferred. As long asdisclaimer thatthe redundancies exist, the POC and reviewersUE usingnow have the additional burden of crosscheckingdifferent200/705/800 to make sure the redundantly statedcorrelationrequirements don’t diverge or contradict eachcharacteristicsother. Particularly in the case of Army review, themayprimary interest is 200. However, since 705 andexperience800 contain information redundant of 200 thatsmallthe Army cares about, all three documents haveadditionalto be reviewed. A document identifying theUser Rangeredundant areas would focus the Army review (aswell as other military reviewers) to the sectionsthey really care about.” There was also asimilar/related comment submitted against thebaseline 800 which was deferred. SuggestedChange: These documents should be pulled fromthe CCB agenda until the sections in all threedocuments containing redundant requirementsare identified. The document identifying theredundancies is essential in performing the reviewand providing comments. Rationale: It’s criticalthat changes to <strong>IS</strong>-<strong>GPS</strong>-200 originate in the <strong>IS</strong>-<strong>GPS</strong>-200 ICWG process, and not first initiated as part ofa change to 705 or 800. The only way to ensurethis does not happen is to modify the wording in705 and 800 to refer to 200 to the maximumextent possible. Assuming the POCs for thesedocuments understands where all theredundancies are, putting something togethershould be a relatively minor task, and would beused by reviewers to identify the sections thatshould be referring back to 200. If the POCs do37

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!