<html>
<body>
Dear CESG Members,<br><br>
SLS and SEA conditions for approval to release CCSDS 727.0-P-4.1, CCSDS
File Delivery Protocol (CFDP) (Pink Book, Issue 4.1) have been satisfied
through negotiation between the ADs and WG chair (related correspondence
is attached below). In response to the CSS conditions, a Security, SANA,
and Patent Considerations annex has been added. All conditions have
therefore been addressed, and the Secretariat will now proceed with CMC
polling.<br><br>
At 08:14 AM 10/15/2014, CCSDS Secretariat wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">CESG E-Poll Identifier:
CESG-P-2014-09-001 Approval to release CCSDS 727.0-P-4.1, CCSDS File
Delivery Protocol (CFDP) (Pink Book, Issue 4.1) for CCSDS Agency
review<br>
Results of CESG poll beginning 30 September 2014 and ending 14 October
2014:<br><br>
Abstain: 0 (0%)<br>
Approve Unconditionally: 2 (40%) (Peccia, Taylor)<br>
Approve with Conditions: 3 (60%) (Shames, Barkley,
Calzolari)<br>
Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)<br><br>
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:<br><br>
Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions): I have noted what appear to be
two minor issues in the attached doc. One is purely editorial. The second
appears to be an inconsistency in the way that segment control is
signaled in different parts of the spec.<br><br>
In addition to the security and SANA sections that Erik noted these
should be resolved before sending the document out for agency
review.<br><br>
Erik Barkley (Approve with Conditions): 1) SANA Registry
considerations/policy is not in the document. Please add.<br>
2) Security considerations/assessment is not in the document. Please
add.<br><br>
Gian Paolo Calzolari (Approve with Conditions): See attached
e-mail.<br><br>
<br>
Total Respondents: 5<br>
No response was received from the following Area(s):<br><br>
SIS<br><br>
SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with
Conditions<br>
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT
ACTION:
Generate CMC poll after conditions have been addressed<br>
</blockquote><br>
At 12:51 PM 10/22/2014, Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font size=2>Scott,</font> <br>
<font size=2> Understood that
point 7 is solved by other means.</font> <br>
<font size=2>I was just asking if it was correct and you confirm it
is.</font> <br><br>
<font size=2>I think that captioning the two diagrams is
sufficient.</font> <br><br>
<font size=2>Best regards</font> <br><br>
<font size=2>Gian Paolo</font> <br><br>
<br><br>
<font size=1 color="#5F5F5F">
From:
</font><font size=1>"Burleigh, Scott C (312B)"
<scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov></font> <br>
<font size=1 color="#5F5F5F">
To:
</font><font size=1>"Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int"
<Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int>, "Thomas Gannett"
<thomas.gannett@tgannett.net>, </font><br>
<font size=1 color="#5F5F5F">
Cc:
</font><font size=1>"Scott, Keith L."
<kscott@mitre.org></font> <br>
<font size=1 color="#5F5F5F">
Date:
</font><font size=1>22/10/2014 18:46</font> <br>
<font size=1 color="#5F5F5F">
Subject:
</font><font size=1>RE: Fwd: RE: [Cesg-all] Results of CESG Poll closing
14 October 2014 (CFDP Pink Book)</font> <br>
<br>
<br><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri" size=2 color="#004080">Hi, Gianpaolo. In my
remarks on your original point 7 I noted that the real issue was that the
Resume procedures should not have been included in the Duplex case in the
first place. So there should have been no difference between the
simplex and duplex cases; that difference has now been removed, so
there’s no need for a note about the difference.</font> <br>
<font face="Calibri" size=2 color="#004080"> </font> <br>
<font face="Calibri" size=2 color="#004080">The two diagrams are really
for “Transaction closure not requested” and “Transaction closure
requested.” Tom, could you add those captions? Gianpaolo,
would that suffice? Since the details of transaction closure
processing are provided elsewhere?</font> <br>
<font face="Calibri" size=2 color="#004080"> </font> <br>
<font face="Calibri" size=2 color="#004080">Scott</font> <br>
<font face="Calibri" size=2 color="#004080"><a name="_MailEndCompose"></a>
</font><a name="_MailEndCompose"></a> <br>
<font face="Calibri" size=2><b>From:</b> Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int
[<a href="mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int">
mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int</a>] <b><br>
Sent:</b> Wednesday, October 22, 2014 1:04 AM<b><br>
To:</b> Thomas Gannett<b><br>
Cc:</b> Scott, Keith L.; Burleigh, Scott C (312B)<b><br>
Subject:</b> Re: Fwd: RE: [Cesg-all] Results of CESG Poll closing 14
October 2014 (CFDP Pink Book)</font> <br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times"> </font> <br>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2>Tom,</font>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times">
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2><br>
as written separately I see two
remaining items for which I have
doubts</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times">
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2><br>
--------------------------------------------------</font>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times">
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2><b><br>
7) 7.3.2 PROCEDURES FOR CLASS 1ADESTINATION -
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2 color="#FF0000">See
QUESTION</b></font><font face="Times New Roman, Times">
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2><br>
My original request was <Include a NOTE to remark that the only
difference wrt simplex are the Resume
Procedures.>.</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times">
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2><br>
Now I see a single table with no remark about differences for simplex vs.
duplex.
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2 color="#FF0000"><b>Is this
correct?</b></font><font face="Times New Roman, Times">
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2><b><br>
8) 7.3.3 EVENT DIAGRAM FOR CLASS 1A -
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2 color="#FF0000">See
QUESTION</b></font><font face="Times New Roman, Times">
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2><br>
If I understand correctly the change bars etc., now there are two
diagrams that differ on the
bottom.</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times">
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2><br>
I guess that they refer to simplex vs. duplex.
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2 color="#FF0000"><b>Is this
correct?</b></font><font face="Times New Roman, Times">
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2><br>
The absence of text can mislead the reader. I do recommend adding some
text explaining why there are two diagrams and drawing the reader's
attention on the differences.</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times">
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2><br>
-------------------------------------------------</font>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times"> <br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2><br>
I guess we can converge
rapidly.</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times"> <br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2><br>
Regards</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times"> <br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2><br>
Gian Paolo</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times"> <br><br>
<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=1 color="#5F5F5F"><br>
From:
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=1>Thomas Gannett
<</font><a href="mailto:thomas.gannett@tgannett.net">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=1 color="#0082BF"><u>
thomas.gannett@tgannett.net</a></u></font>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=1>></font>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times">
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=1 color="#5F5F5F"><br>
To:
</font><a href="mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=1 color="#0082BF"><u>
Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int</a></u></font>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=1>,
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=1 color="#5F5F5F"><br>
Cc:
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=1>"Burleigh, Scott C
(312B)"
<</font><a href="mailto:scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=1 color="#0082BF"><u>
scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov</a></u></font>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=1>>, "Scott, Keith L."
<</font><a href="mailto:kscott@mitre.org">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=1 color="#0082BF"><u>
kscott@mitre.org</a></u></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=1>
></font><font face="Times New Roman, Times">
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=1 color="#5F5F5F"><br>
Date:
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=1>21/10/2014
23:03</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times">
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=1 color="#5F5F5F"><br>
Subject:
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=1>Fwd: RE: [Cesg-all] Results
of CESG Poll closing 14 October
2014</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times"> </font><br>
<div align="center"><br>
</div>
<br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times"><br><br>
<br>
Gian Paolo:<br><br>
Attached is an updated version of the draft CFDP Pink Book reflecting
Scott Burleigh's responses to the poll conditions. His notes concerning
his responses to your conditions are below. I have addressed condition
4ii by changing the Green Book reference to a future update (my
understanding is the Green Book is indeed being updated to be consistent
with the Blue Book update).<br><br>
If the current version is acceptable, let me know so I can proceed to the
CMC poll.<br><br>
Best regards,<br>
Tom<br><br>
From: "Burleigh, Scott C (312B)"
<</font><a href="mailto:scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov">
<font face="Times New Roman, Times" color="#0082BF"><u>
scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov</a></u></font>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times">><br>
To: Thomas Gannett
<</font><a href="mailto:thomas.gannett@tgannett.net">
<font face="Times New Roman, Times" color="#0082BF"><u>
thomas.gannett@tgannett.net</a></u></font>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times">><br>
CC:
"</font><a href="mailto:kscott@mitre.org">
<font face="Times New Roman, Times" color="#0082BF"><u>
kscott@mitre.org</a></u></font><font face="Times New Roman, Times">"
<</font><a href="mailto:kscott@mitre.org">
<font face="Times New Roman, Times" color="#0082BF"><u>
kscott@mitre.org</a></u></font><font face="Times New Roman, Times">
><br>
Subject: RE: [Cesg-all] Results of CESG Poll closing 14 October 2014<br>
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2014 00:15:46
+0000</font><font face="Calibri" size=2><br><br>
Okay, here is the revised book, which I think addresses all of the CESG
approval conditions. I'm attaching a PowerPoint slide containing
two new event diagrams for section 7.2, one for Class 1 over simplex
paths and a second one for Class 1 over duplex paths. The text
changes in the book respond to Peter's and Erik's conditions and, with a
couple of minor adjustments, to Gianpaolo's conditions: </font>
<ul>
<li><font face="Calibri" size=2>Points 2 and 3 are already correct in the
copy I'm working from.
<li>I cannot make head nor tail out of 4.ii; I don't know what note to
amend, and I don't know why we're talking about [C4] -- reference to a
Green Book, as near as I can tell -- in this poll anyway.
<li>Point 5: the caption for Table 7-1 is correct as written, since there
is no Class 1A.
<li>Point 6: the tables have been updated to reflect the intent of
Gianpaolo's condition, but in a slightly different way.
<li>Point 7: no, the Resume Procedures at the destination node in Class 1
shouldn't have been included in the first place.
<li>Point 8: please insert the new event diagrams.
<li>Point 9: Tom, sorry, I'm afraid I have to leave this one to you.
</ul> <br>
Scott<br>
</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times"><br><br>
[attachment "727x0p40_post_CESG_Approval.pdf" deleted by Gian
Paolo Calzolari/esoc/ESA] </font><br>
<font size=2>This message and any attachments are intended for the use of
the addressee or addressees only.</font> <br>
<font size=2>The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying
(either in whole or in part) of its</font> <br>
<font size=2>content is not permitted.</font> <br>
<font size=2>If you received this message in error, please notify the
sender and delete it from your system.</font> <br>
<font size=2>Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be
guaranteed by the sender.</font> <br>
<font size=2> </font> <br>
<font size=2>Please consider the environment before printing this
email.</font> <br><br>
<pre>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.
</pre></blockquote>At 06:18 PM 10/17/2014, Shames, Peter M (312B)
wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Ok. I get the logic.
<br><br>
By this note I'll remove the condition.<br><br>
Peter<br><br>
<br>
From: <Burleigh>, Scott Burleigh
<<a href="mailto:Scott.C.Burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov">
Scott.C.Burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov</a>><br>
Date: Friday, October 17, 2014 1:51 PM<br>
To: Peter Shames
<<a href="mailto:peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov">
peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov</a>><br>
Cc: Tom Gannett
<<a href="mailto:thomas.gannett@tgannett.net">
thomas.gannett@tgannett.net</a>>, Keith Scott
<<a href="mailto:kscott@mitre.org">kscott@mitre.org</a>><br>
Subject: CFDP Pink Book question<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>Hi, Peter. Of your two conditions on approving release of the
CFDP Pink Book, one is a good editorial catch that I am addressing in a
revised document and the other is this question:<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Since 5.1.3, Table 5-1 adds a segment flag I am puzzled as to why it
has been removed here. What is the reason for this?<br>
</i>
<dd> <br>
<dd>The real question is what purpose was really served by carrying that
flag in the Metadata in the first place. I guess it could have been used
as a hint to the implementation as to whether or not to issue the
optional File-Segment-Recv.indication primitives upon receipt of file
data segments, but the argument on this point was made prior to the last
ice age.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>The reason to remove it now is that it is no longer needed in the
Metadata PDU, since it’s carried in every PDU header. As of the
issuance of the Approval edition of the spec, it serves the very
necessary purpose of distinguishing between segments of a
non-record-structured file and segments that are the non-final
continuations of long records beginning with earlier segments, so that
the application can reconstruct records correctly (if it so wishes).<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>As of the email I sent out this morning, though, I am beginning to be
a fan of deleting it altogether. The mechanism I was sketching this
morning would actually enable transmission of a file that was a mix of
unstructured data and record-structured data, which could conceivably be
handy.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Anyway, please let me know if you still have a question here.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Thanks,<br>
<dd>Scott<br>
</blockquote>
</dl><br><br>
</body>
</html>