<font size=2 face="sans-serif">Tom,</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Please generate, at your earliest convenience,
the related CMC polls that either were approved unconditionally or those
with conditions already solved</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">i.e</font>
<br><font size=2 color=red face="sans-serif">CCSDS 506.0-P-2.1, Delta-Differential
One Way Ranging (Delta-DOR) Operations (Pink Sheets, Issue 1.1) for
CCSDS Agency review</font>
<br><font size=2 color=red face="sans-serif">CCSDS 506.3-R-1, Delta-DOR
Quasar Catalogue Update Procedure (Red Book, Issue 1) for CCSDS Agency
review</font>
<br><font size=2 color=red face="sans-serif">CCSDS 122.0-P-2.1, Image Data
Compression (Pink Sheets, Issue 1.1) for CCSDS Agency review</font>
<br><font size=2 color=red face="sans-serif">CCSDS 231.0-P-2.1, TC Synchronization
and Channel Coding (Pink Sheets, Issue 2.1) for CCSDS Agency review</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">This will help to close the Agency reviews
prior to the Rome Technical meeting</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">As discussed in the last CESG webex,
there is only one poll with conditions open (TM sync and channel coding)</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">ciao</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">nestor</font>
<br>
<br><font size=1 color=#800080 face="sans-serif">----- Forwarded by Nestor
Peccia/esoc/ESA on 11/07/2016 15:34 -----</font>
<br>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">From:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">"CCSDS Secretariat"
<thomas.gannett@tgannett.net></font>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">To:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">cesg-all@mailman.ccsds.org</font>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Date:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">15/06/2016 00:50</font>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Subject:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">[Cesg-all] Results
of CESG Polls closing 13 June 2016</font>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Sent by:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">"CESG-all"
<cesg-all-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org></font>
<br>
<hr noshade>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2016-05-001 Approval
to release CCSDS <br>
506.0-P-2.1, Delta-Differential One Way Ranging (Delta-DOR) <br>
Operations (Pink Sheets, Issue 1.1) for CCSDS Agency review<br>
Results of CESG poll beginning 27 May 2016 and ending 13 June 2016:<br>
<br>
Abstain:
0 (0%)<br>
Approve Unconditionally: 3 (50%) (Barkley, Shames, Barton)<br>
Approve with Conditions: 3 (50%) (Merri, Cola, Calzolari)<br>
Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)<br>
<br>
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:<br>
<br>
Mario Merri (Approve with Conditions): I have the following comments:<br>
<br>
A) Section 6.1 states: "In order to support Delta-DOR <br>
interoperability, it is necessary to transfer the<br>
following data products between agencies:<br>
a) service request;<br>
b) exchange format raw Delta-DOR data (if any);<br>
c) meteo data (TDM);<br>
d) orbit ephemeris files (OEM);<br>
e) reduced Delta-DOR data (TDM)."<br>
<br>
However, in the reminder of the chapter I can only identify items a) <br>
(section 6.2), d) (Section 6.3). Please cover all items<br>
<br>
B) Section 6.2.4 Service Request Naming Convention. Is this <br>
describing the filenaming conventions? If so, it is not clear. Please clarify.<br>
<br>
C) Section 6. The document introduce the word "service". However,
the <br>
standardisation of services is not limited only to the format of the <br>
message exchanged, but also to the modality of the exchange. <br>
Typically, it describes the "dialogue" between service consumer
and <br>
service provider including possible error messages in case of wrong <br>
requests. Nothing of this nature appears in the document. I suggest <br>
that the document is changed to state that it describes data formats <br>
or data messages instead of services.<br>
<br>
Tomaso de Cola (Approve with Conditions): In Table 6-1, DorOff <br>
appears as YYYY-DD: shouldn't it be YYYY-DDD instead?<br>
<br>
Gian Paolo Calzolari (Approve with Conditions): Please consider at <br>
Review Time some harmonization of the new clauses to correctly show <br>
the normative approach by using the shall form. As an example see <br>
clause 6.2.1.5 The mechanism for Service Request exchange is defined <br>
in the IA (see annex A). that could be changed to 6.2.1.5 The <br>
mechanism for Service Request exchange defined in the IA (see annex <br>
A) shall be used.<br>
Other example 6.2.3.3 The special lines $START and $END appear at the <br>
beginning and end of the items for each session. The special line <br>
$$EOF appears at the very end. (See annex C for examples.) that cane <br>
be changed to: 6.2.3.3 The special lines $START and $END shall appear <br>
at the beginning and end of the items for each session. The special <br>
line $$EOF shall appear at the very end. (See annex C for<br>
examples.)<br>
The condition - to avoid delaying the review start - is to generate a <br>
RID for the agency review<br>
<br>
<br>
Total Respondents: 6<br>
All Areas responded to this question.<br>
<br>
SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with Conditions<br>
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate
CMC poll after <br>
conditions have been addressed<br>
<br>
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>
<br>
CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2016-05-002 Approval to release CCSDS <br>
506.3-R-1, Delta-DOR Quasar Catalogue Update Procedure (Red Book, <br>
Issue 1) for CCSDS Agency review<br>
Results of CESG poll beginning 27 May 2016 and ending 13 June 2016:<br>
<br>
Abstain:
1 (14.29%) (Merri)<br>
Approve Unconditionally: 6 (85.71%) (Barkley, Shames, Scott,
Cola, <br>
Calzolari, Barton)<br>
Approve with Conditions: 0 (0%)<br>
Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)<br>
<br>
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:<br>
<br>
Keith Scott (Approve Unconditionally): Just a question: section 4 <br>
(e.g. 4.3) of this document lists supporting material that must <br>
accompany catalog updates. None of that material is present here (the <br>
initial catalog). Is it the intent that such material will make it to <br>
FUTURE CESG / CMC reviews, or only as far as the DDOR WG and, by the <br>
time updates reach the CESG they will have been stripped of that information?<br>
<br>
At this point just a comment but one that may cause more discussion <br>
later. This book assumes that the DDOR WG will exist in perpetuity <br>
(or be periodically reanimated) to receive and process updates to the <br>
catalog(s). I don't know the frequency at which updates will be <br>
coming, but it seems like it *might* either be a standing perpetual <br>
WG or a lot of administrative churn to keep reinstantiating the WG.<br>
<br>
<br>
Total Respondents: 7<br>
All Areas responded to this question.<br>
<br>
SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved Unconditionally<br>
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate
CMC poll<br>
<br>
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>
<br>
CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2016-05-003 Approval to release CCSDS <br>
122.0-P-2.1, Image Data Compression (Pink Sheets, Issue 1.1) for <br>
CCSDS Agency review<br>
Results of CESG poll beginning 27 May 2016 and ending 13 June 2016:<br>
<br>
Abstain:
0 (0%)<br>
Approve Unconditionally: 8 (100%) (Barkley, Merri, Shames,
Scott, <br>
Cola, Calzolari, Moury, Barton)<br>
Approve with Conditions: 0 (0%)<br>
Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)<br>
<br>
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:<br>
<br>
Erik Barkley (Approve Unconditionally): Comment only: recommend that <br>
reference [B8] be assigned a book number as soon as possible.<br>
<br>
<br>
Total Respondents: 8<br>
All Areas responded to this question.<br>
<br>
SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved Unconditionally<br>
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate
CMC poll<br>
<br>
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>
<br>
CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2016-05-004 Approval to release CCSDS <br>
131.0-P-2.1, TM Synchronization and Channel Coding (Pink Sheets, <br>
Issue 2.1) for CCSDS Agency review<br>
Results of CESG poll beginning 27 May 2016 and ending 13 June 2016:<br>
<br>
Abstain:
0 (0%)<br>
Approve Unconditionally: 7 (87.5%) (Barkley, Merri, Scott,
Cola, <br>
Calzolari, Moury, Barton)<br>
Approve with Conditions: 1 (12.5%) (Shames)<br>
Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)<br>
<br>
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:<br>
<br>
Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions): There are a number of issues <br>
with the draft. Some of these are just editorial, but the description <br>
of the CSM, in particular, seems to have both some confusing aspects <br>
and some inaccuracies. See attached mark-up for specific comments.<br>
<br>
<br>
Total Respondents: 8<br>
All Areas responded to this question.<br>
<br>
SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with Conditions<br>
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate
CMC poll after <br>
conditions have been addressed<br>
<br>
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>
<br>
CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2016-05-005 Approval to release CCSDS <br>
231.0-P-2.1, TC Synchronization and Channel Coding (Pink Sheets, <br>
Issue 2.1) for CCSDS Agency review<br>
Results of CESG poll beginning 27 May 2016 and ending 13 June 2016:<br>
<br>
Abstain:
0 (0%)<br>
Approve Unconditionally: 6 (75%) (Merri, Scott, Cola, Calzolari,
<br>
Moury, Barton)<br>
Approve with Conditions: 2 (25%) (Barkley, Shames)<br>
Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)<br>
<br>
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:<br>
<br>
Erik Barkley (Approve with Conditions): 1) Annex A appears to have <br>
been erroneously included in the list of pink sheets -- there are no <br>
change markings. Suggest either removing these from the pink sheets <br>
prior to agency review or providing indication of changes.<br>
<br>
Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions): There is one minor editorial <br>
issue identified on pg 2-4 in the attached mark-up.<br>
<br>
<br>
Total Respondents: 8<br>
All Areas responded to this question.<br>
<br>
SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with Conditions<br>
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate
CMC poll after <br>
conditions have been addressed<br>
<br>
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
CESG-all mailing list<br>
CESG-all@mailman.ccsds.org<br>
</font></tt><a href="http://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cesg-all"><tt><font size=2>http://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cesg-all</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2><br>
</font></tt>
<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>