<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">
<div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
Peter,</div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<br>
</div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
The status on the ‘duplicative of the CCSDS Org & Proc. Doc.’ RIDS is still ‘reject’, correct? I really think it’s unwise for these requirements to be stated in both the Organization and Procedures document and the Registry Management Policy document. While
the RMP should certainly contain the rules for managing the registry, it seems odd for it to contain requirements such as:</div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<br>
</div>
<blockquote style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;">
<div><font color="#0000ff"><span style="font-family: arial, sans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">3.3.1.1.12 </span><font face="Calibri,sans-serif">A CCSDS Member may act as the sponsor for one or more Associate Organizations in its country.</font></font></div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><font face="Calibri,sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
</blockquote>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<font face="Calibri,sans-serif">[OK, and looking at this one again now, why not ‘zero or more’?]</font></div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<br>
</div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<font face="Calibri,sans-serif">The RMP isn’t where I’d go to look for such a requirement, and having the requirement in both the RMP and the Org & Procs document seems like it’s just begging for the two requirements (or one of the others in this category)
to become mis-aligned between the two.</font></div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<font face="Calibri,sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<font face="Calibri,sans-serif">Also, if the wording of the corresponding requirements between the two documents is not exactly the same, which wins?</font></div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<font face="Calibri,sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<font face="Calibri,sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<font face="Calibri,sans-serif">Might we be able to reference the relevant O&P requirements from notes in the RMP document? That would allow the RMP document to list all the requirements relevant to registries while avoiding the issue of duplicative requirements.</font></div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<font face="Calibri,sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font face="Calibri,sans-serif"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre;"></span>—keith</font></div>
<div><font face="Calibri,sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<br>
</div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<font face="Calibri,sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<br>
</div>
</div>
<span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:12pt; text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt">
<span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span>"<a href="mailto:kscott.mitre@gmail.com">kscott.mitre@gmail.com</a>" <<a href="mailto:kscott.mitre@gmail.com">kscott.mitre@gmail.com</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 8:21 AM<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span>"Scott, Keith L." <<a href="mailto:kscott@mitre.org">kscott@mitre.org</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span>Fwd: FW: [Cesg-all] Results of CESG Polls closing 21 January 2016<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_quote">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>
From: "Scott, Keith L." <<a href="mailto:kscott@mitre.org">kscott@mitre.org</a>><br>
Date: Feb 1, 2016 8:50 PM<br>
Subject: FW: [Cesg-all] Results of CESG Polls closing 21 January 2016<br>
To: "<a href="mailto:kscott.mitre@gmail.com">kscott.mitre@gmail.com</a>" <<a href="mailto:kscott.mitre@gmail.com">kscott.mitre@gmail.com</a>><br>
Cc: <br>
<br type="attribution">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:14px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">
<strong>
<div><font face="Tahoma" color="#000000" size="2"> </font></div>
</strong>
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%">
<font face="Tahoma" size="2"><b>From:</b> Shames, Peter M (312B)<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, February 1, 2016 8:48:08 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)<br>
<b>To:</b> Scott, Keith L.<br>
<b>Subject:</b> FW: [Cesg-all] Results of CESG Polls closing 21 January 2016<br>
</font><br>
<div></div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>Hi Keith,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Most of the RIDs on the 313x1y1 were pretty easy to disposition, except for the SIS ones. I found myself marking most of them “reject” and wanted to take a moment to explain why. Many of them made the point that requirements in this document, the RMP,
were duplicative with the CCSDS Org & Proc doc. While I agree that the Org & Proc doc conains much of the same language it tends to do it in a prose style and to mix different topics in different places. It is also the case that some of the “requirements”
that we operate by are not in the Org & Proc doc but instead appear only in the CCSDS web site.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The intent with this document was to put all of these requirements, the procedure for checking them off, and the description of how the results are managed, into one, structured, as concise as possible, document. This really contains policy, procedure,
and design, all in one. We do not have this information anywhere else in CCSDS in this sort of compact form, and the Secretariat website guy, the CCSDS tech editor, the SANA operator, and other SSG people all had a strong hand in crafting it, reviewing it,
and approving it before it went out for ider review.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>There are a couple of points where the wording may be more confusing than it needs to be, having to do with the way that the Contact and Or registries are described. We could clean these up if strongly desired.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Given all of that would you accept the document more or less as it is, with the indicated changes?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks, Peter</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span>
<div style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:12pt;text-align:left;color:black;border-bottom:medium none;border-left:medium none;padding-bottom:0in;padding-left:0in;padding-right:0in;border-top:#b5c4df 1pt solid;border-right:medium none;padding-top:3pt">
<span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span><<a href="mailto:cesg-all-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org" target="_blank">cesg-all-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org</a>> on behalf of Tom Gannett <<a href="mailto:tomg@aiaa.org" target="_blank">tomg@aiaa.org</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>Friday, January 22, 2016 at 1:15 PM<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span>CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG All <<a href="mailto:cesg-all@mailman.ccsds.org" target="_blank">cesg-all@mailman.ccsds.org</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span>[Cesg-all] Results of CESG Polls closing 21 January 2016<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote style="border-left:#b5c4df 5 solid;padding:0 0 0 5;margin:0 0 0 5">
<div>
<div>
<div>CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2015-12-003 </div>
<div>Approval to publish CCSDS A02.1-Y-4 Cor. 2, </div>
<div>Corrigendum 1 to CCSDS A02.1-Y-4, Issued April 2014</div>
<div>Results of CESG poll beginning 18 December 2015 and ending 21 January 2016:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> Abstain: 0 (0%)</div>
<div> Approve Unconditionally: 10 (100%) (Barkley, </div>
<div>Merri, Behal, Shames, Scott, Cola, Calzolari, Moury, Suess, Barton)</div>
<div> Approve with Conditions: 0 (0%)</div>
<div> Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Total Respondents: 10</div>
<div>All Areas responded to this question.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved Unconditionally</div>
<div>PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate CMC poll</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2015-12-004 </div>
<div>Approval to publish CCSDS 313.0-Y-2, Space </div>
<div>Assigned Numbers Authority (SANA)—Role, </div>
<div>Responsibilities, Policies, and Procedures Yellow Book, Issue 2)</div>
<div>Results of CESG poll beginning 18 December 2015 and ending 21 January 2016:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> Abstain: 0 (0%)</div>
<div> Approve Unconditionally: 6 (75%) (Behal, Shames, Scott, Cola, Suess, Barton)</div>
<div> Approve with Conditions: 2 (25%) (Barkley, Merri)</div>
<div> Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Erik Barkley (Approve with Conditions): 1) From: </div>
<div>"Third Generation Project" To: "Third Generation </div>
<div>Partnership Project"; Rationale: Proper defintion of acronym per 3GPP website</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>2) Either a) from "registration authority" to </div>
<div>"review authority" or b) revise all existing SANA </div>
<div>registry to revise existing meta data</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>3) From: "SANA manages only the protocol </div>
<div>registries of the CCSDS," to some phrase that is </div>
<div>consistent with registry classifications in the </div>
<div>RMP. Rationale: The RMP does not formally define </div>
<div>"protocol registries" but defines, "enterprise", </div>
<div>"global", and "local/WG" classes of registries. </div>
<div>Use of RMP classification will help to reduce ambiguity.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>4) From: "Programmatic access to the SANA </div>
<div>registries shall be provided via an HTTP/REST </div>
<div>query interface." to some sentence indicating the </div>
<div>HTTP Methods to be supported. Rationale: </div>
<div>Technically, REST is not a protocol, but rather a </div>
<div>style of utilization of HTTP. I suspect that a </div>
<div>"full REST"/Restful web-services capability is </div>
<div>not truly desired, at least not at this time. </div>
<div>"Full REST type capability" allows for HTTP </div>
<div>methods such PUT and POST. I suspect that </div>
<div>probably methods such as GET are really only </div>
<div>intended here. Suggest including a reference in </div>
<div>the document to RFC 2616 and restricting access </div>
<div>to those HTTP methods to be allowed for SANA.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>5) From: "Expert Groups are not intended to </div>
<div>require significant resources nor meeting rooms </div>
<div>at bi-annual meetings" to some sort of allowance </div>
<div>for at least a meeting room. Rationale: it is </div>
<div>conceivable that an expert group will have to </div>
<div>meet face-to-face to resolve an issue and agency </div>
<div>budgets/allowance outside of the bi-annual meeting cycle are typically lacking.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>6) Remove Annex A. Rationale: the list of </div>
<div>candidate registries is orthogonal to the roles </div>
<div>and responsibility defined herein and is properly identified in the RMP.</div>
<div>1</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Mario Merri (Approve with Conditions): I suggest </div>
<div>to add in sec 3.16 also "backup system" or </div>
<div>something similar. Backup must be a mandatory functionality.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Total Respondents: 8</div>
<div>No response was received from the following Area(s):</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>SLS</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with Conditions</div>
<div>PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate </div>
<div>CMC poll after conditions have been addressed</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2015-12-005 </div>
<div>Approval to publish CCSDS 313.1-Y-1, CCSDS SANA </div>
<div>Registry Management Policy (Yellow Book, Issue 1)</div>
<div>Results of CESG poll beginning 18 December 2015 and ending 21 January 2016:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> Abstain: 0 (0%)</div>
<div> Approve Unconditionally: 4 (50%) (Shames, Cola, Suess, Barton)</div>
<div> Approve with Conditions: 4 (50%) (Barkley, Merri, Behal, Scott)</div>
<div> Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Erik Barkley (Approve with Conditions): Summary of conditions:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>1) Minor editorial RIDs</div>
<div>2) Lack of purge policy</div>
<div>3) IOAG RF Assets registry appears to be </div>
<div>duplicative of Sites and Apertures registry in </div>
<div>contradiction to general policy of not having duplicative registries</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Detailed conditions are in the attached file.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Mario Merri (Approve with Conditions): 3.4.6.5 </div>
<div>Refers to a "CCSDS Common Schema" registries yet </div>
<div>no further reference is made to this or an explanation of what this is.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>3.4.6.5 Refers to the use of the "CCSDS </div>
<div>Terminology Registry", it should be made clear </div>
<div>that this shall only be applied to new XML Schema </div>
<div>and only where that would not break </div>
<div>compatibility, or backward compatibility, with </div>
<div>existing relevant XML Schema. For example, a new </div>
<div>revision of a MOIMS Navigation XML Schema shall </div>
<div>not be required to adopt terms if that adoption </div>
<div>would break backwards compatibility with the previous revisions of the schema.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Bigette Behal (Approve with Conditions): The </div>
<div>process to take care of "obsolete" information in </div>
<div>the cross cutting registries should be clarified </div>
<div>(For instance when the "entity" that was the </div>
<div>source/maintainer of the information is no longer active)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Keith Scott (Approve with Conditions): See attached</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Total Respondents: 8</div>
<div>No response was received from the following Area(s):</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>SLS</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with Conditions</div>
<div>PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate </div>
<div>CMC poll after conditions have been addressed</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2015-12-006 </div>
<div>Approval to publish CCSDS 313.2-Y-1, Procedures </div>
<div>for SANA Registry Specification (Yellow Book, Issue 1)</div>
<div>Results of CESG poll beginning 18 December 2015 and ending 21 January 2016:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> Abstain: 0 (0%)</div>
<div> Approve Unconditionally: 6 (75%) (Merri, Behal, Shames, Cola, Suess, Barton)</div>
<div> Approve with Conditions: 2 (25%) (Barkley, Scott)</div>
<div> Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Erik Barkley (Approve with Conditions): One </div>
<div>condition: From: "Registry Authority" To: "Review </div>
<div>Authority". Rationale: Registries currently </div>
<div>available via the SANA website do not list </div>
<div>Registry Authorities, but rather "Review </div>
<div>Authorities". The change makes the procedures and </div>
<div>SANA metadata extant consistent.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>A suggestion: CESG verification criteria </div>
<div>guidelines for different classes of registries </div>
<div>(enterprise, global, etc.) will be useful.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>A side note for CESG consideration: WGs are often </div>
<div>listed as the SANA Review authorities, however </div>
<div>WGs, are suppose to go out of existence once </div>
<div>their charter has been addressed; it might make </div>
<div>sense to indicate the area rather than the WG as </div>
<div>the review authority as Areas are constituted as standing bodies within CCSDS.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Keith Scott (Approve with Conditions): See attached.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Total Respondents: 8</div>
<div>No response was received from the following Area(s):</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>SLS</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with Conditions</div>
<div>PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate </div>
<div>CMC poll after conditions have been addressed</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2016-01-001 </div>
<div>Approval to release CCSDS 401.0-P-25.1, Radio </div>
<div>Frequency and Modulation Systems—Part 1: Earth </div>
<div>Stations and Spacecraft (Red Sheets, Issue 25.1) for CCSDS Agency review</div>
<div>Results of CESG poll beginning 12 January 2016 and ending 21 January 2016:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> Abstain: 2 (22.22%) (Merri, Behal)</div>
<div> Approve Unconditionally: 7 (77.78%) (Barkley, </div>
<div>Shames, Scott, Cola, Calzolari, Suess, Barton)</div>
<div> Approve with Conditions: 0 (0%)</div>
<div> Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Total Respondents: 9</div>
<div>All Areas responded to this question.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved Unconditionally</div>
<div>PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate CMC poll</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2016-01-002 </div>
<div>Approval to release CCSDS 766.1-P-1.1, Digital </div>
<div>Motion Imagery (Pink Sheets, Issue 1.1) for CCSDS Agency review</div>
<div>Results of CESG poll beginning 12 January 2016 and ending 21 January 2016:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> Abstain: 1 (11.11%) (Behal)</div>
<div> Approve Unconditionally: 7 (77.78%) (Barkley, </div>
<div>Merri, Scott, Cola, Calzolari, Suess, Barton)</div>
<div> Approve with Conditions: 1 (11.11%) (Shames)</div>
<div> Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions): Glad to </div>
<div>see that JPEG2000 is now included.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>However, I did not see an update of the </div>
<div>706.11-Y-0MIAYellowBookFinal test report from the </div>
<div>earlier Blue Book (which also seems to be </div>
<div>incorrectly numbered). Was this tested using the </div>
<div>same method as the other options and where is that documented?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Total Respondents: 9</div>
<div>All Areas responded to this question.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with Conditions</div>
<div>PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate CMC poll</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</span>
</body>
</html>