<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#44546A;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">I have no objections. Being that SCP-TP is a tuning on TCP and SIS is where we do internetworking in CCSDS it seems like a logical fit to me.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">-Erik<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> cesg-all-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org [mailto:cesg-all-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Shames, Peter M (312B)<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, April 01, 2015 8:46 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Scott, Keith L.; Secretariat@mailman.ccsds.org; CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG All (cesg-all@mailman.ccsds.org); Kazz, Greg J (312B)<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Cesg-all] RE: Why is SLS-SLP the Review Authority for the SCPS-TP Extended Capability Binding Space Identifiers?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black">Keith,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black">I agree that the SIS area should be the Review Authority for all of these SCPS registries. I'll ask the SANA and the SSG to review and recommend the change unless anyone has an objection.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:10.5pt;color:red">Are there any objections or issues with this?</span></i></b><span style="font-size:10.5pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black">Thanks, Peter<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:black">From: </span></b><span style="color:black"><Scott>, Keith Scott <<a href="mailto:kscott@mitre.org">kscott@mitre.org</a>><br>
<b>Date: </b>Monday, March 30, 2015 at 4:20 PM<br>
<b>To: </b>CCSDS Secretariat <<a href="mailto:secretariat@mailman.ccsds.org">secretariat@mailman.ccsds.org</a>>, CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG All <<a href="mailto:cesg-all@mailman.ccsds.org">cesg-all@mailman.ccsds.org</a>>, Greg Kazz <<a href="mailto:Greg.J.Kazz@jpl.nasa.gov">Greg.J.Kazz@jpl.nasa.gov</a>><br>
<b>Subject: </b>[Cesg-all] RE: Why is SLS-SLP the Review Authority for the SCPS-TP Extended Capability Binding Space Identifiers?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #B5C4DF 4.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt;margin-left:3.75pt;margin-right:0in" id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#44546A">Seems to be the same for all the SCPS registries. Maybe because SLS-SLP is an extant WG?</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#44546A"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#44546A"> --keith</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#44546A"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><b><span style="color:black">From:</span></b><span style="color:black"> Scott, Keith L.
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, March 30, 2015 4:20 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:Secretariat@mailman.ccsds.org">Secretariat@mailman.ccsds.org</a>; CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG All (<a href="mailto:cesg-all@mailman.ccsds.org">cesg-all@mailman.ccsds.org</a>);
<a href="mailto:greg.j.kazz@jpl.nasa.gov">greg.j.kazz@jpl.nasa.gov</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Why is SLS-SLP the Review Authority for the SCPS-TP Extended Capability Binding Space Identifiers?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:black">Shouldn’t the review authority for
<a href="http://sanaregistry.org/r/scps_tp_extended_capability_id/scps_tp_extended_capability_id.html">
http://sanaregistry.org/r/scps_tp_extended_capability_id/scps_tp_extended_capability_id.html</a></span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:black">Be the SIS area, not SLS-SLP?</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:black"> --keith</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</body>
</html>