<span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">Dear Peter &
All,</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
please find here below some comments in view of today's
discussion.</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">I hope it helps</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">Ciao & stay
safe</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">Gian Paolo</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">---------------------------------------------------------------------------------</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"><b>313.0-Y-3
PID SLS-04
</b> I note your Proposed / Agreed resolution</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:red;font-family:sans-serif">Accept
the revised language.</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:red;font-family:sans-serif">FROM:
The CESG shall review the Candidate registry prior to approving the release
of the document for its first Agency review. </span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:red;font-family:sans-serif">TO:
The CESG shall review the document (including the Annex with Candidate
registry) within the CESG Poll for releasing the document for its first
Agency review.</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:blue;font-family:sans-serif">This
is satisfying this condition</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"><b>313.0-Y-3
GPC SLS-06</b>
<b> </b> I note your Proposed / Agreed resolution</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:red;font-family:sans-serif">Remove
the "NOTE -". Make clear that this is a formal part of
the CESG responsibilities.</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:blue;font-family:sans-serif">This
is (in principle) satisfying this condition. However it would be nice showing
the proposed text to "</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:red;font-family:sans-serif">Make
clear that this is a formal part of the CESG responsibilities</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:blue;font-family:sans-serif">"</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"><b>313.0-Y-3
GPC SLS-11</b>
I note your Proposed / Agreed resolution</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:red;font-family:sans-serif">Accept
with modifications:</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:red;font-family:sans-serif">From:</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:red;font-family:sans-serif">The
CESG is responsible for verifying that SANA and registry requirements are
met, that the Candidate registry exists and is in appropriate form before
approving the document for first Agency review. The CESG is also responsible
for verifying that the registry is in production form prior to approving
the final document defining the registry for publication.</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:red;font-family:sans-serif">To:</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:red;font-family:sans-serif">During
the CESG poll prior to first Agency review the CESG is responsible for
verifying that SANA and registry requirements are met, that the Candidate
registry exists and is in appropriate form before approving the document
for first Agency review. During the CESG poll for publication the CESG
is responsible for verifying that the registry is in production form
prior to approving the final document defining the registry for publication</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">.</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">I still dislike
part of the proposed modification.</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">In the first sentence
I find redundant "</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:red;font-family:sans-serif">that
the Candidate registry exists and is in appropriate form</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">"
as it is an unnecessary detail.</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">However I would
accept decision by majority of CESG.</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"><b>313.0-Y-3
GPC SLS-13,</b>
I still think the current text is an unnecessary detail.</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">However I would
accept decision by majority of CESG.</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"><b>313.0-Y-3
GPC SLS-16
</b> needing </span><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:red;font-family:sans-serif"><u>CESG
discussion</u></span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">,
I remark that the intention is to mirror in Org&Proc (in whatever form)
the possibility of creating Expert Groups. If they are assimilated to SIGs
(requiring only AD actions) fine for me amending (the short) section 2.3.5
SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS (SIGS) instead of (the long) section 5.2.7 SPECIAL
INTEREST GROUP MEETINGS that is specifically addressing meetings.</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">If the expert
group requires CESG or CMC approval, then something dedicated should exist,</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"><b>313.1-Y-2
MM</b> addressing
"response to 313.0-Y-3, GPC, SLS-16".</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">It looks to me
that the situation of the XML Expert Group (or persistent XML SIG?) shall
anyhow be clarified.</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">the matter of
recoding participants to these Experts Groups shall also be clarified.
</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"><b> 313.2-Y-2
GPC SLS-05
</b>I note your Proposed / Agreed resolution</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:red;font-family:sans-serif">Section
2.3 is, admitedly, long. It is a non-normative, descriptive, section
of the document and these are often "descriptive", as intended
by the format. We could, as you request, create a separate, formal,
"contact list" section at the front of section 3 and then just
refer to these as "SANA Operator", "SSG", "BETA
Registries". Does that scratch your itch?.</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:blue;font-family:sans-serif">YES.
This is satisfying this condition</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"><b> 313.2-Y-2
GPC SLS-01
</b> <b> </b>I note your Proposed / Agreed resolution</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:red;font-family:sans-serif">Accepted,
with modifications:</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:red;font-family:sans-serif">FROM:</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:red;font-family:sans-serif">The
registry is expected to be complete and stable prior to the start of Agency
review.</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:red;font-family:sans-serif">TO:</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:red;font-family:sans-serif">The
registry is expected to be complete and stable (i.e. fully consistent with
the draft document) prior to the start of Agency review."</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:blue;font-family:sans-serif">This
is satisfying this condition</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">.</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"><b> 313.2-Y-2
GPC SLS-02
</b></span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">Even if not marked
so: </span><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:#ff00ff;font-family:sans-serif"><b>This
needs CESG discussion.</b> </span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">However I would
accept decision by majority of CESG.</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> 313.2-Y-2
GPC SLS-04
I do not agree that we shall remark the obvious, however I do not want
to fight for this.</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:blue;font-family:sans-serif">This
is satisfying this condition</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">.</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> <b>313.2-Y-2
GPC SLS-06</b>
</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:#ff00ff;font-family:sans-serif"><b>This
needs CESG discussion.</b> </span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"><b> 313.2-Y-2
GPC SLS-08
</b></span><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:#ff00ff;font-family:sans-serif"><b>This
needs CESG discussion.</b> </span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"><b> 313.2-Y-2
GPC SLS-09</b>
</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:#ff00ff;font-family:sans-serif"><b>This
needs CESG discussion.</b> </span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">Interoperability
Test Reports are WG Chair Responsibility and eventually AD & CESG verify
those Test Reports.</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">However I find
excessive stating asking CESG to verify interactions (i.e. mail exchanges?).</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">If needed Org&Proc
section "6.2.6.1 Approval Criteria b) 1) first bullet" (see below)
could be amended to add the ned for documenting inclusion/verification
of required interactions.</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:#800000;font-family:sans-serif">-
the WG Chair is responsible for documenting
the specific implementations that qualify
the specification for CCSDS Recommended Standard
status, along with reports relevant to their testing; </span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"><b> 315.1-Y-1
GPC SLS-06
</b> I note your Proposed / Agreed resolution</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:red;font-family:sans-serif">.....
Sec 3, pg 3-1, To:</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:red;font-family:sans-serif">The
following structure is defined for the tree under urn:ccsds. The requestor
of a new or changed URN may be a CCSDS Area, Working Group or Agency. The
URN registry is a CCSDS Global registry, as defined in reference [6].</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:blue;font-family:sans-serif">This
is satisfying this condition</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"><b> 315.1-Y-1
GPC SLS-03</b>
See response to 313.0-Y-3, GPC,
SLS-16..... needing </span><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:red;font-family:sans-serif"><u>CESG
discussion</u></span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">,
I remark that the intention is to mirror in Org&Proc (in whatever form)
the possibility of creating Expert Groups. If they are assimilated to SIGs
(requiring only AD actions) fine for me amending (the short) section 2.3.5
SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS (SIGS) instead of (the long) section 5.2.7 SPECIAL
INTEREST GROUP MEETINGS that is specifically addressing meetings.</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">If the expert
group requires CESG or CMC approval, then something dedicated should exist,</span>
<br>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</span>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:sans-serif">From:
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:sans-serif">"Shames,
Peter M\(US 312B\) via CESG" <cesg@mailman.ccsds.org></span>
<br><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:sans-serif">To:
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:sans-serif">"Margherita.di.Giulio@esa.int"
<Margherita.di.Giulio@esa.int></span>
<br><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:sans-serif">Cc:
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:sans-serif">"CCSDS
Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec" <cesg@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">01-04-20
00:22</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]
Materials for discussion during CESG WebEx on unresolved PIDs, Thursday,
2 Apr 20, 0800 PDT</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"
<cesg-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org></span>
<br>
<hr noshade>
<br>
<br>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Dear
Margherita, et al,</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Attached
please find a spreadsheet with the set of unresolved PIDs that were raised
during the four recent CESG polls:</span></p>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">1.
</span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Poll
CESG-P-2020-02-001, Doc CCSDS 313.0-Y-3, Draft SANA Role, Responsibilities,
Policies, and Procedures (largely guidance for the SANA Operator
and the CMC, CESG, interactions)</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">2.
</span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Poll
CESG-P-2020-02-001, Doc CCSDS 313.1-Y-2, Draft Registry Management Policy
(describes the overall re-engineering of the set of SANA registries, with
emphasis on the Enterprise and Global sets, and the overall registry use
and extension policies)</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">3.
</span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Poll
CESG-P-2020-02-003, Doc CCSDS 313.2-Y-2, Draft Procedures for SANA Registry
Specification (a concise guide for any WG that needs to create or modify
a registry, should be the only doc that most WG need to read)</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">4.
</span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Poll
CESG-P-2020-02-004, Doc CCSDS 315.1-Y-1, Draft CCSDS URN Namespace Policy
(the policy for URNs)</span>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">There
is a total of 25 separate PIDs, but several of them are duplicates from
different ADs, or are the same issue raised for different documents. There
are proposed resolutions for all of these. I believe that only some
of these really need CESG discussion, and those are so marked in column
"J" as "</span><span style=" font-size:11pt;color:red;font-family:Calibri"><b>This
needs CESG discussion.</b> </span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">".
Others may have different opinions, which I am sure we will discuss.
I will remind everyone that there is a separate set of PIDs and resolutions
that you have all seen where the resolutions were accepted by the ADs who
submitted them. They are not included here, only the unresolved ones.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">I
only prepared this one spreadsheet. Other materials relating to the
rationale for this set of editorial changes were already distributed, as
was the entire set of proposed resolutions and AD "reclama" responses.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">See
you all on Thursday.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Best
regards, and take care, Peter</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> [attachment
"CESG Poll unresolved issues 313x0,1,2 & 315x1 30Mar20.xlsx"
deleted by Gian Paolo Calzolari/esoc/ESA] </span><tt><span style=" font-size:10pt">_______________________________________________<br>
CESG mailing list<br>
CESG@mailman.ccsds.org<br>
</span></tt><a href="https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cesg"><tt><span style=" font-size:10pt">https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cesg</span></tt></a><tt><span style=" font-size:10pt"><br>
</span></tt></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"></p><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>