<span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">Dear All,</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
what is the evolution in case Peter condition
is accepted and CCSDS 500.0-G becomes a Magenta Book?</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">There will be
a Red Book review or what?</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">Thanks</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">Gian Paolo</span>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#800080;font-family:sans-serif">-----
Forwarded by Gian Paolo Calzolari/esoc/ESA on 21-10-19 11:40 -----</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:sans-serif">From:
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:sans-serif">"CCSDS
Secretariat" <thomas.gannett@tgannett.net></span>
<br><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:sans-serif">To:
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:sans-serif">cesg-all@mailman.ccsds.org</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:sans-serif">Date:
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:sans-serif">21-10-19
09:07</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:sans-serif">Subject:
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:sans-serif">[Cesg-all]
Results of CESG Polls closing 18 October 2019</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:sans-serif">Sent
by: </span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:sans-serif">"CESG-All"
<cesg-all-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org></span>
<br>
<hr noshade>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><span style=" font-size:10pt">CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2019-10-001
<br>
Approval to release CCSDS 121.0-P-2.1, Lossless <br>
Data Compression (Pink Sheets, Issue 2.1) for CCSDS Agency review<br>
Results of CESG poll beginning 4 October 2019 and ending 18 October 2019:<br>
<br>
Abstain: 0
(0%) Approve <br>
Unconditionally: 5 (100%) (Merri, Shames, Burleigh, Cola, Calzolari)<br>
Approve with Conditions: 0 (0%) Disapprove with Comment: 0
(0%)<br>
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:<br>
<br>
Scott Burleigh (Approve <br>
Unconditionally): Note, not a condition: on <br>
pages 2-3 and 5-6, "File Deliver Protocol" should <br>
be changed to "File Delivery Protocol".<br>
<br>
<br>
Total Respondents: 5<br>
<br>
No response was received from the following Area(s):<br>
<br>
CSS<br>
SOIS<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved Unconditionally<br>
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate
CMC poll<br>
<br>
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>
CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2019-10-002 <br>
Approval to publish CCSDS 500.0-G-4, Navigation <br>
Data—Definitions and Conventions (Green Book, Issue 4)<br>
Results of CESG poll beginning 4 October 2019 and ending 18 October 2019:<br>
<br>
Abstain: 0
(0%) Approve <br>
Unconditionally: 4 (80%) (Merri, Burleigh, Cola, Calzolari)<br>
Approve with Conditions: 1 (20%) (Shames)<br>
Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)<br>
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:<br>
<br>
Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions): I <br>
skimmed the document and looked, in particular, at the stated contents:<br>
<br>
b)Section 3 provides foundational information on <br>
the data types and units served by the navigation messages.<br>
<br>
c)Section 4 provides details about coordinate <br>
frames, time systems, astrodynamics constants, <br>
environmental models, and other ancillary <br>
concepts important in spacecraft navigation.<br>
<br>
d)Section 5 discusses properties and processes of <br>
the entities that participate in a navigation data exchange.<br>
<br>
e)Section 6 discusses the types and associated <br>
attributes of measurements that may be made during a navigation session.<br>
<br>
I am left wondering is this document is really <br>
best characterized as a Green Book, or if its <br>
contents and intended use really make it a <br>
Magenta Book in nature? Magenta Books, after all, state this:<br>
<br>
6.1.4.3 Recommended Practices are normative <br>
and have prescriptive content but are typically <br>
not directly implementable for interoperability <br>
or cross support. They may be of several types:<br>
<br>
a) specifications that are <br>
“foundational” for other specifications, but <br>
within themselves do not define content in a way <br>
that allows independent development and testing <br>
of separate but interoperable systems;<br>
Have you considered characterizing this as an MB?<br>
<br>
Scott Burleigh (Approve <br>
Unconditionally): Note, not a condition: on <br>
page 4-10, for clarity, the x-axis of the graph <br>
should be labeled "difference in seconds" or something to that
effect.<br>
<br>
<br>
Total Respondents: 5<br>
<br>
No response was received from the following Area(s):<br>
<br>
CSS<br>
SOIS<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with Conditions<br>
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate
<br>
CMC poll after conditions have been addressed<br>
<br>
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>
CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2019-10-003 <br>
Approval to publish CCSDS 500.1-G-2, <br>
Delta-DOR—Technical Characteristics and Performance (Green Book, Issue
2)<br>
Results of CESG poll beginning 4 October 2019 and ending 18 October 2019:<br>
<br>
Abstain: 0
(0%) Approve <br>
Unconditionally: 5 (100%) (Merri, Shames, Burleigh, Cola, Calzolari)<br>
Approve with Conditions: 0 (0%) Disapprove with Comment: 0
(0%)<br>
Total Respondents: 5<br>
<br>
No response was received from the following Area(s):<br>
<br>
CSS<br>
SOIS<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved Unconditionally<br>
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate
CMC poll<br>
<br>
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>
CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2019-10-004 <br>
Approval to publish CCSDS 508.1-B-1, Re-entry Data Message (Blue Book,
Issue 1)<br>
Results of CESG poll beginning 4 October 2019 and ending 18 October 2019:<br>
<br>
Abstain: 1
(20%) (Calzolari)<br>
Approve Unconditionally: 3 (60%) (Merri, Burleigh, Cola)<br>
Approve with Conditions: 1 (20%) (Shames)<br>
Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)<br>
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:<br>
<br>
Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions): In <br>
Sec B.1.2, re consequnce of not applying <br>
security, isn't it possible that an RDM could be <br>
tampered with and there is no mechanism defined <br>
to detect this? This is surely a more general <br>
concern in CCSDS in general, but the addition of <br>
a simple checksum, or a digital signature, would <br>
provide a significant boost in data confidence.<br>
<br>
In sec B2, the last paragraph, there is the statement:<br>
<br>
"The registration rule for new entries in the <br>
registry is the approval of new requests by the <br>
CCSDS Area or Working Group responsible for the <br>
maintenance of the RDM at the time of the request. "<br>
<br>
I am left wondering "new entries in which <br>
registry"? AFAIK there is no new registry <br>
specified in this document. Is this intended to <br>
reference the registry of the XML spec? If so, <br>
that should be clear. Likewise any process for <br>
updating the spec and marking a new version.<br>
<br>
<br>
Total Respondents: 5<br>
<br>
No response was received from the following Area(s):<br>
<br>
CSS<br>
SOIS<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with Conditions<br>
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate
<br>
CMC poll after conditions have been addressed<br>
<br>
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
CESG-All mailing list<br>
CESG-All@mailman.ccsds.org<br>
</span></tt><a href="https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cesg-all"><tt><span style=" font-size:10pt">https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cesg-all</span></tt></a><tt><span style=" font-size:10pt"><br>
</span></tt>
<br><PRE>This message is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. It may contain proprietary information and/or
protected content. Any unauthorised disclosure, use, retention or dissemination is prohibited. If you have received
this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately. ESA applies appropriate organisational measures to protect
personal data, in case of data privacy queries, please contact the ESA Data Protection Officer (dpo@esa.int).
</PRE>