<html>
<body>
Dear CESG Members,<br><br>
Conditions for approval of CCSDS 141.0-B-1, Optical Communications
Physical Layer (Blue Book, Issue 1) have been disposed to the
satisfaction of the AD(s) who voted to approve with conditions. The
Secretariat will now proceed with CMC polling to authorize publication.
<br><br>
From: "Barkley, Erik J (3970)"
<erik.j.barkley@jpl.nasa.gov><br>
To: Thomas Gannett <thomas.gannett@tgannett.net><br>
CC: "Hamkins, Jon (3320)"
<jon.hamkins@jpl.nasa.gov>,<br>
"bernard.l.edwards@nasa.gov"
<bernard.l.edwards@nasa.gov><br>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: Results of CESG Polls closing 12 July
2019<br>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 18:20:50 +0000<br><br>
Okay, my mistake, sorry about that. <br>
<br>
-Erik <br>
<b>From:</b> Thomas Gannett <thomas.gannett@tgannett.net> <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, July 15, 2019 10:41<br>
<b>To:</b> Barkley, Erik J (3970)
<erik.j.barkley@jpl.nasa.gov><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Hamkins, Jon (3320) <jon.hamkins@jpl.nasa.gov>;
bernard.l.edwards@nasa.gov<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: Results of CESG Polls closing 12 July
2019<br>
<br>
(I stated that the test report was "not <b>in</b>consistent"
[emphasis added].)<br>
<br>
<br>
Logothete, L.L.C.<br>
<a href="mailto:thomas.gannett@tgannett.net">
thomas.gannett@tgannett.net</a><br>
+1 443 472 0805<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Thomas Gannett
[<a href="mailto:thomas.gannett@tgannett.net">
mailto:thomas.gannett@tgannett.net</a>] <br>
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2019 1:36 PM<br>
To: 'Barkley, Erik J (3970)'<br>
Cc: 'Hamkins, Jon (3320)'; 'bernard.l.edwards@nasa.gov'<br>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: Results of CESG Polls closing 12 July
2019<br>
<br>
Erik:<br>
<br>
Test reports remain in draft state. I can remove the statement before I
post it to the CWE, if that satisfies your condition.<br>
<br>
Tom<br>
<br>
<br>
Logothete, L.L.C.<br>
<a href="mailto:thomas.gannett@tgannett.net">
thomas.gannett@tgannett.net</a><br>
+1 443 472 0805<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Barkley, Erik J (3970)
[<a href="mailto:erik.j.barkley@jpl.nasa.gov">
mailto:erik.j.barkley@jpl.nasa.gov</a>] <br>
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2019 1:26 PM<br>
To: CCSDS Secretariat<br>
Cc: Hamkins, Jon (3320);
<a href="mailto:bernard.l.edwards@nasa.gov">bernard.l.edwards@nasa.gov</a>
<br>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: Results of CESG Polls closing 12 July
2019<br>
<br>
Tom,<br>
<br>
Much better with regard to the RID report. The disposition records are
good to have and of course to add some useful information. As a part of
retiring this condition perhaps an email can be sent to CESG to indicate
that there is indeed a proper RID report? <br>
<br>
With regard to the patent statement, you indicate that the draft test
report is not consistent with CCSDS procedures, but that the Blue Book
is. Perhaps it is just a matter of removing the patent
considerations section from the test report? <br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
-Erik<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: CCSDS Secretariat
<<a href="mailto:thomas.gannett@tgannett.net">
thomas.gannett@tgannett.net</a>> <br>
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2019 10:08<br>
To: Barkley, Erik J (3970)
<<a href="mailto:erik.j.barkley@jpl.nasa.gov">
erik.j.barkley@jpl.nasa.gov</a>><br>
Cc: Hamkins, Jon (3320)
<<a href="mailto:jon.hamkins@jpl.nasa.gov">jon.hamkins@jpl.nasa.gov</a>
>;
<a href="mailto:bernard.l.edwards@nasa.gov">bernard.l.edwards@nasa.gov</a>
<br>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: Results of CESG Polls closing 12 July 2019<br>
<br>
Erik:<br>
<br>
First, mea maxima culpa, I attached the wrong RID report to the poll.
<br>
(There were two versions with long names differentiated only by a date at
the end, which did not show up in directory view.) The correct version is
attached to this email.<br>
<br>
Second, the statement in the draft test report is not inconsistent with
our procedures, and in fact the Foreword of the draft Blue Book contains
the statement (required by our procedures):<br>
<br>
"Attention is drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of
this document may be the subject of patent rights. CCSDS has processes
for identifying patent issues and for securing from the patent holder
agreement that all licensing policies are reasonable and
non-discriminatory. However, CCSDS does not have a patent law
staff, and CCSDS shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all
such patent rights."<br>
<br>
Please respond to this email if you feel your conditions have been
satisfied (or not).<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
Tom<br>
<br>
<br>
>CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2019-06-001 Approval to publish
CCSDS <br>
>141.0-B-1, Optical Communications Physical Layer (Blue Book, Issue 1)
<br>
>Results of CESG poll beginning 30 June 2019 and ending 12 July
2019:<br>
> <br>
>
Abstain: 1 (16.67%) (Merri) Approve Unconditionally: <br>
>4 (66.67%) (Shames, Burleigh, Calzolari, Wilmot) Approve with <br>
>Conditions: 1 (16.67%) (Barkley) Disapprove with Comment:
0 (0%)<br>
>CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:<br>
> <br>
> Erik Barkley (Approve with
Conditions): 1) There are no <br>
> dispositions indicated in the RID report. Please include the
<br>
> dispositions of the RIDs in the RID report.<br>
> <br>
>2) Patent considerations:<br>
> <br>
>a) The recommendations states: No patents are known to relate to this
<br>
>Recommended Standard.<br>
> <br>
>b) The test report states: JPL has not filed any patents specific to
<br>
>the proposed 141.0-R-1 standard [1]. Implementers are cautioned that
<br>
>there are many patents on the general topic of physical layer optical
<br>
>communications.<br>
>a) and b) above seem to be at odds -- Please update the
recommendation <br>
>and/or test report as appropriate.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
>Total Respondents: 6<br>
> <br>
>All Areas responded to this question.<br>
> <br>
> <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>
</body>
</html>