<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; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">
<div>
<div>Dear CESG, CCSDS Secretariat, and other RID submitters,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Attached please find the edited versions of the three documents reviewed in CESG-P-2015-12-004, 005, and 006 and the dispositioned sets of RIDs. All of the RIDs were dispositioned and the documents updated in accordance with the RIDs that were submitted.
Archove files with the RIDs are attached, as is an archive file with the updated figures for inclusion in the RMP, CCSDS 313.1-Y-1. Aside from the required changes to the SANA registries, the only other outstanding issues are the following:</div>
<ol>
<li>The update to Fig A-1 that I have asked Erik to deal with, since the issues are directly related to registry entries that CSS is directly responsible for.</li><li>The open question of whether the RMP should be the controlling document, since it does include requirements language for guidance that is otherwise stated in prose form in the CCSDS Org and Proc, or in the CCSDS website.</li></ol>
<div>The last two documents that are attached are the RMP RIDs from David Berry (CRM) and the Glossary of terms for the RMP that he requested. David caught a lot of typos and inconsistent use of terminology. Thanks for the careful reading.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Most of the RIDs that were submitted were relatively minor technical issues, or terminology ambiguities, or editorial in nature. Resolving them has lead to a much better set of documents, and the diligence of all the reviewers who responded is really
appreciated. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Please review these RIDs and the proposed dispositions and send an acknowledgement if they are acceptable, or indicate if there are still further issues to be resolved. I’d like to do this no later than 12 Feb 2016. We need to get these documents into
the CMC review queue and then start the work to actually re-engineer the SANA (and CCSDS website)registries.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best regards, Peter</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div id="MAC_OUTLOOK_SIGNATURE"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
<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">cesg-all-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org</a>> on behalf of Tom Gannett <<a href="mailto:tomg@aiaa.org">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">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 id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="BORDER-LEFT: #b5c4df 5 solid; PADDING:0 0 0 5; MARGIN:0 0 0 5;">
<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>
</blockquote>
</span>
</body>
</html>