[wfc] Next: Checksum proposal (revisited)

[Arnold Rots]

My apologies, a message from Randy Thompson finally made me read my
message again.  I meant to say November 22, not November 15.
I.e., if no significant issues are brought up by November 22, I will
call for a vote; however, if any significant issues are raised, we
will discuss them and take it from there.

  - Arnold

> Dear WFC,
> 
> Not losing any momentum in clearing old business, attached is a letter
> from Bill Pence on the Checksum proposal that is still pending in this
> committee.  It was submitted in April and after discussion a revised
> version was produced in May.
> 
> At this point I would like to ask whether anyone has additional
> comments on or objections to the new version of this proposal.
> If such is the case, we will need more discussion; if not, I would
> like to move to a vote on the proposal.
> 
> Please respond by Friday, November 15, 2002.
> 
> Thank you,
> 
>   - Arnold
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Arnold H. Rots                                Chandra X-ray Science Center
> Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory                tel:  +1 617 496 7701
> 60 Garden Street, MS 67                              fax:  +1 617 495 7356
> Cambridge, MA 02138                             arots at head-cfa.harvard.edu
> USA                                     http://hea-www.harvard.edu/~arots/
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> We (Rob Seaman, Arnold Rots, and I) have reached a consensus on a new
> version of the checksum keyword proposal which we are now resubmitting to
> the WGAS FITS Committee for their consideration.  This incorporates the
> changes that I had proposed in my previous message (copied below).  It is
> available from the same web as before:
> 
> http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/heasarc/fits/checksum.html
> 
> This 23 May 2002 version of the proposal now contains virtually all the
> discussion from the 1995 version of the proposal (but is still only 1/2 as
> long). This makes it a more complete and self-contained document as was
> requested in particular by Don and Eric.
> 
> The proposal is now organized into 2 main sections, much like the Y2000 FITS
> agreement: The main body of the proposal contains a concise definition of
> the DATASUM and CHECKSUM keywords.  We envision that this section, if
> approved, will be added to section 5.4 of the FITS Standard.  This is
> followed by an appendix  which presumably would be added as an appendix to
> the Standard.
> 
> regards,
> Bill Pence
> 
> William Pence wrote on 02 May 2002:
> >
> > I'd like to offer a suggestion to modify the organization of the checksum
> > proposal to meet the requests by Don and Eric to make it more self contained
> > and contain more background or overview information:  The current proposal
> > could be reorganized to contain a short main section that just defines the
> > DATASUM and CHECKSUM keywords, followed by an appendix that contains
> > everything else, including:
> >
> >  - a slightly longer introductory section, as in the 1995 paper
> >  - the recommended implementations from the current proposal
> >  - the coding examples from the current proposal
> >  - the "Alternate Checksum Algorithms" section from the 1995 paper
> >  - and perhaps a 'recommended usage' section, if anyone has anything useful
> >    to say
> >
> > The intention then would be that the short main body of the proposal would
> > be integrated into the FITS Standard proper, and the appendix of the
> > proposal would be added as an appendix to the FITS Standard. (Whether this
> > appendix is actually voted on and approved by the WFC, or whether is is
> > prefaced with the statement "This Appendix is not part of the NOST FITS
> > Standard, but is included as a guide to recommended practices" remains an
> > open question).
> >
> > More specifically, the main body of this revised proposal would just contain
> > what is in sections 1, 2, and 3.0 (and not 3.1 or 3.2) of the current
> > proposal.  How this is actually integrated into the FITS Standard should be
> > left to an editorial panel to decide, but a reasonable suggestion would be
> > to insert this as a new section 5.4.2.7, "Checksum Keywords".
> >
> > The remaining material would be added as an appendix to the Standard, where
> > it is more permissible to have more narrative discussions.
> >
> > If this seems reasonable to everyone, I can prepare a new draft in the next
> > day or 2.
> > 
> > -- 
> > ____________________________________________________________________
> > Dr. William Pence                          pence at tetra.gsfc.nasa.gov
> > NASA/GSFC Code 662         HEASARC         +1-301-286-4599 (voice)     
> > Greenbelt MD 20771                         +1-301-286-1684 (fax)
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> wfc mailing list
> wfc at listmgr.cv.nrao.edu
> http://listmgr.cv.nrao.edu/mailman/listinfo/wfc
>