<html>
<body>
Dear CESG members,<br><br>
Conditions for the approval of CESG-P-2017-02-004 Approval to release
CCSDS 524.3-R-1, Mission Operations--Message Abstraction Layer Binding to
HTTP Transport and XML Encoding (Red Book, Issue 1) for CCSDS Agency
review have been addressed to the satisfaction of the ADs who voted to
approve with conditions. The Secretariat will now proceed with CMC
polling.<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">CESG E-Poll Identifier:
CESG-P-2017-02-004 Approval to release CCSDS 524.3-R-1, Mission
Operations—Message Abstraction Layer Binding to HTTP Transport and XML
Encoding (Red Book, Issue 1) for CCSDS Agency review<br>
Results of CESG poll beginning 18 February 2017 and ending 3 March
2017:<br><br>
Abstain: 1 (14.29%) (Calzolari)<br>
Approve Unconditionally: 3 (42.86%) (Merri, Behal,
Wilmot)<br>
Approve with Conditions: 3 (42.86%) (Barkley, Shames,
Burleigh)<br>
Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)<br><br>
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:<br><br>
Erik Barkley (Approve with Conditions): 1) namespace in section 5.2 needs
to be brought into conformance with RFC7738 which was filed in 2016 by
CCSDS with IANA and is the controlling document for CCSDS
namespaces<br><br>
2) registration of URI scheme "malhttp" is, in all likelyhood
incorrectly indicated as being with SANA. To the best of my knoweldge URI
schemes are registred with IANA. Please check and update as appropriate
(ie., removal from SANA consideration, and perhaps RFC 4395 applies
here).<br><br>
Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions): There are many issues with this
document. These are all marked in the attached PDF and the major ones are
documented in the four PIDs.<br><br>
Scott Burleigh (Approve with Conditions): Since, according to section 1.1
of this document, the MAL binding to HTTP and the XML encoding for MAL
data types are mutually independent, I do not understand why they are
being published together as a single book. Wouldn't the implementation,
utilization, infusion, and maintenance of both standards be easier if
they were published as separate documents? I can appreciate that
publishing a single book might be administratively simpler, but I don't
think that's a very good rationale. If there is a sound technical
argument for combining these two standards in a single Blue Book I will
gladly withdraw this condition.<br><br>
In any event, I think it would be a profound service to the reader to
state in section 1.1 that the MAL binding pertains only to the MAL
message header and the XML encoding pertains only to the MAL message
body, as explained in the fourth paragraph of section 2.1. (If this is
not true, then I think section 2.1 needs revision.)<br><br>
Finally, is it the case that MAL can be bound to HTTP running over UDP as
an alternative to TCP? Section 2.4.1 seems to indicate that it is, while
section 3.4.1(2) and Table 3-5 indicate that it is not.<br><br>
Gian Paolo Calzolari (Abstain): Editorial comments:<br><br>
Ref. [5], [6], [8] are never called.<br><br>
Ref. [4] only call4ed in non nomative sections, then it should be
informative reference.<br><br>
<br>
Total Respondents: 7<br>
All Areas responded to this question.<br><br>
SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with
Conditions<br>
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT
ACTION:
Generate CMC poll after conditions have been addressed<br><br>
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *</blockquote><b>From:</b>
Sam Cooper
[<a href="mailto:sam@brightascension.com" eudora="autourl">
mailto:sam@brightascension.com</a>] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, September 11, 2017 4:09 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Mario Merri; Dan Smith<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Brigitte Behal; Thomas Gannett<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Fwd: Re: CESG review of MAL HTTP/XML binding<br>
<br>
Dear Mario,<br><br>
In light of all conditions being resolved, please find the link below for
the updated red book document for agency review:<br><br>
<a href="https://cwe.ccsds.org/moims/docs/MOIMS-SMandC/Draft%20Documents/MO%20MAL%20Binding%20to%20HTTP(s)%20Transport%20and%20XML%20Encoding/524x3r0_CESG_Approval_Updated_3.doc">
https://cwe.ccsds.org/moims/docs/MOIMS-SMandC/Draft%20Documents/MO%20MAL%20Binding%20to%20HTTP(s)%20Transport%20and%20XML%20Encoding/524x3r0_CESG_Approval_Updated_3.doc</a>
<br><br>
Best regards,<br>
Sam.<br><br>
<br>
-------- Forwarded Message -------- <br>
<div align="right"><b>Subject: <br>
</b></div>
Re: CESG review of MAL HTTP/XML binding<br>
<div align="right"><b>Date: <br>
</b></div>
Wed, 6 Sep 2017 15:03:53 +0000<br>
<div align="right"><b>From: <br>
</b></div>
Shames, Peter M (312B)
<a href="mailto:peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov">
<peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov></a><br>
<div align="right"><b>To: <br>
</b></div>
Sam Cooper
<a href="mailto:sam@brightascension.com">
<sam@brightascension.com></a>, Mario Merri
<a href="mailto:Mario.Merri@esa.int"><Mario.Merri@esa.int></a>, Dan
Smith
<a href="mailto:danford.s.smith@nasa.gov">
<danford.s.smith@nasa.gov></a><br><br>
<br><br>
Thanks Sam.<br>
<br>
Peter<br>
<br>
<br>
<b>From: </b>Sam Cooper
<a href="mailto:sam@brightascension.com">
<sam@brightascension.com></a><br>
<b>Date: </b>Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 1:46 AM<br>
<b>To: </b>Peter Shames
<a href="mailto:peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov">
<peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov></a>, Mario Merri
<a href="mailto:Mario.Merri@esa.int"><Mario.Merri@esa.int></a>, Dan
Smith
<a href="mailto:danford.s.smith@nasa.gov">
<danford.s.smith@nasa.gov></a><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: CESG review of MAL HTTP/XML binding<br>
<br>
Hi Peter,<br><br>
Brilliant, thank you, and completely understand your priority scheme!
:-)<br><br>
Fixed those issues:<br>
1) For the NULL fields, there are no NULL fields in the header in this
version, it was left over from a previous version of the document.<br>
2) For the CRC comment, as I mentioned when you first raised that concern
all that time ago, there isn't a CRC in HTTP and I suspect it got left
over from the MAL SPP book it was based on. So nothing being missed out
or ignore, just a cut and paste error.<br>
3) Good spot, fixed!<br><br>
Many thanks again for your time Peter.<br><br>
Cheers,<br>
Sam.<br><br>
<br>
On 05/09/2017 22:51, Shames, Peter M (312B) wrote:<br><br>
<br>
Hi Sam,<br>
<br>
Sorry for the delay. I was off on a vacation, visiting with my
grandkids. That took priority.<br>
<br>
I think that you may have been a little over-zealous in your
pruning. See comments on pgs 2-7 and 2-8. See also pg B-6 for
another issue.<br>
<br>
These are all easy to fix.<br>
<br>
Otherwise this seems OK to me now.<br>
<br>
Thanks, Peter<br>
<br>
<br>
<b>From: </b>Sam Cooper
<a href="mailto:sam@brightascension.com">
<sam@brightascension.com></a><br>
<b>Date: </b>Monday, September 4, 2017 at 7:05 AM<br>
<b>To: </b>Peter Shames
<a href="mailto:peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov">
<peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov></a>, Mario Merri
<a href="mailto:Mario.Merri@esa.int"><Mario.Merri@esa.int></a>, Dan
Smith
<a href="mailto:danford.s.smith@nasa.gov">
<danford.s.smith@nasa.gov></a><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: CESG review of MAL HTTP/XML binding<br>
<br>
Hi Peter,<br><br>
Do you have any further comments to make or shall I assume that
everything is as you expected to see after our get together?<br><br>
Regards,<br>
Sam.<br><br>
<br><br>
On 17/08/2017 13:59, Sam Cooper wrote:<br>
Dear Peter,<br><br>
Sorry for the very long delay in processing your CESG RIDs on the
HTTP/XML mapping. Thanks for your time in San Antonio going through them
with me.<br><br>
I've attached the updated version for you to check before I send it
onwards for the Agency review, could you let me know if everything is now
ok please?<br><br>
Best regards,<br>
Sam.<br>
<b> <br>
<br>
From:</b> Sam Cooper
[<a href="mailto:sam@brightascension.com" eudora="autourl">
mailto:sam@brightascension.com</a>] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, September 11, 2017 4:03 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Burleigh, Scott C (312B); Barkley, Erik J (3970)<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Mario Merri; Thomas Gannett<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: CESG review of MAL HTTP/XML binding<br>
<br>
Many thanks Scott.<br><br>
Cheers,<br>
Sam.<br><br>
On 08/09/2017 16:21, Burleigh, Scott C (312B) wrote:<br>
Hi, Sam. Yes, that works, and my conditions are satisfied. I
still think it would be better practice to separate the two
specifications into two books that advance together and reference each
other, but I acknowledge that we are not going in that direction.<br>
<br>
Scott<br>
<br>
<b>From:</b> Sam Cooper
[<a href="mailto:sam@brightascension.com">
mailto:sam@brightascension.com</a>] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, September 8, 2017 6:14 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Burleigh, Scott C (312B)
<a href="mailto:scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov">
<scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov></a>; Barkley, Erik J (3970)
<a href="mailto:erik.j.barkley@jpl.nasa.gov">
<erik.j.barkley@jpl.nasa.gov></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: CESG review of MAL HTTP/XML binding<br>
<br>
Hi Scott,<br><br>
The two parts are in a single book simply because we feel that the XML
encoding is the encoding of choice when using the HTTP binding. However,
as you correctly surmised they are independent of each other. So, I
propose to add the following statement to the end of section
1.1:<br><br>
The binding from the MAL to HTTP pertains only to the MAL message header
and message exchange and the XML encoding pertains only to the encoding
of the MAL message body, see section 2.4.1 for more specific details on
this.<br><br>
<br>
Does this work?<br><br>
Cheers,<br>
Sam.<br><br>
<br>
On 07/09/2017 22:43, Burleigh, Scott C (312B) wrote:<br>
Hi, Sam. I see that you have resolved the ambiguity about the use
of UDP for MAL/HTTP, but I have not yet been able to find where you
either [a] give a technical reason why this should not instead be two
books (one for MAL binding to HTTP and one for MAL message body encoding
in XML), since those two functions are mutually independent, or [b] state
very early on that the MAL binding pertains only to the MAL message
header and the XML encoding pertains only to the MAL message body.
Sorry, I am not trying to be difficult, but I really think the reader
deserves some additional clarity here.<br>
<br>
Scott<br>
<br>
<b>From:</b> Sam Cooper
[<a href="mailto:sam@brightascension.com">
mailto:sam@brightascension.com</a>] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, September 4, 2017 2:09 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Burleigh, Scott C (312B)
<a href="mailto:scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov">
<scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov></a>; Barkley, Erik J (3970)
<a href="mailto:erik.j.barkley@jpl.nasa.gov">
<erik.j.barkley@jpl.nasa.gov></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> CESG review of MAL HTTP/XML binding<br>
<br>
DearAll,<br><br>
Sorry for the very long delay in processing your CESG RIDs on the
HTTP/XML mapping.<br><br>
I've attached the updated version for you to check before I send it
onwards for the Agency review, could you let me know if everything is now
ok please?<br><br>
Best regards,<br>
Sam.<br>
<br>
<b>From:</b> Barkley, Erik J (3970)
[<a href="mailto:erik.j.barkley@jpl.nasa.gov" eudora="autourl">
mailto:erik.j.barkley@jpl.nasa.gov</a>] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, September 08, 2017 4:59 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Sam Cooper; Burleigh, Scott C (312B)<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Mario Merri; Secretariat@mailman.ccsds.org; Tom Gannett
(thomas.gannett@tgannett.net)<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: CESG review of MAL HTTP/XML binding<br>
<br>
Sam,<br>
<br>
Okay, given that the URI scheme is of limited applicability (never seen
“outside of an MO aware system” as you note) then SANA registration is
appropriate. I consider my conditions to be retired. I am
copying the CCSDS secretariat for cognizance.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
-Erik<br>
<br>
<br>
<a name="_MailEndCompose"></a> <br>
<b>From:</b> Sam Cooper
[<a href="mailto:sam@brightascension.com">
mailto:sam@brightascension.com</a>] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, September 8, 2017 6:15 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Barkley, Erik J (3970)
<<a href="mailto:erik.j.barkley@jpl.nasa.gov">
erik.j.barkley@jpl.nasa.gov</a>>; Burleigh, Scott C (312B)
<<a href="mailto:scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov">
scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Mario Merri
<<a href="mailto:Mario.Merri@esa.int">Mario.Merri@esa.int</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: CESG review of MAL HTTP/XML binding<br>
<br>
Hi Erik,<br><br>
We discussed your second condition during the technical meeting in San
Antonio. The conclusion the group came to was that we did not feel that
there was a need to register the URI scheme with IANA as it would never
be seen outside of an MO aware system and therefore the involvement of
IANA was an extra complexity/overhead that we wanted to avoid.<br><br>
The SANA statement is to update a table we have in SANA that links our
URI schemes to the relevant book number.<br><br>
I hope this make sense!<br><br>
Cheers,<br>
Sam.<br>
On 07/09/2017 19:24, Barkley, Erik J (3970) wrote:<br>
Sam,<br>
<br>
Thanks for sending the update. Certainly my first condition is
addressed – use of a namespace in conformance with RFC 7738 (CCSDS
URI). The update looks just fine. <br>
<br>
My second condition stated “registration of URI scheme
"malhttp" is, in all likelyhood incorrectly indicated as being
with SANA. To the best of my knoweldge URI schemes are registred
with IANA. Please check and update as appropriate (ie.,
removal from SANA consideration, and perhaps RFC 4395 applies
here).”<br>
<br>
What I find in the updated recommendation is: <br>
<br>
<br>
“…3.4.4 The scheme
name ‘malhttp’ shall be added to the SANA registry ‘MAL Binding URI
Scheme Name’ and shall refer to the Mission Operations HTTP Transport and
XML Encoding document ‘CCSDS 524.3-R-0’…” <br>
<br>
I am curious, has the question of URI Scheme registration been looked
at? I don’t recall any discussion/email along these lines. Any
further information you can supply will be appreciated.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
-Erik <br>
<br>
<b>From:</b> Sam Cooper
[<a href="mailto:sam@brightascension.com">
mailto:sam@brightascension.com</a>] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, September 4, 2017 2:09 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Burleigh, Scott C (312B)
<a href="mailto:scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov">
<scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov></a>; Barkley, Erik J (3970)
<a href="mailto:erik.j.barkley@jpl.nasa.gov">
<erik.j.barkley@jpl.nasa.gov></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> CESG review of MAL HTTP/XML binding<br>
<br>
DearAll,<br><br>
Sorry for the very long delay in processing your CESG RIDs on the
HTTP/XML mapping.<br><br>
I've attached the updated version for you to check before I send it
onwards for the Agency review, could you let me know if everything is now
ok please?<br><br>
Best regards,<br>
Sam.<br><br>
<br>
</body>
</html>