<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ligatures:standardcontextual;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>All,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Thank you to all who were able to participate in today’s call – we got a lot done!<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>In particular, we resolved comments received in response to the Working Group last call on the LTP Corrigendum. The participants in the call believe that we have consensus on the approach to resolving the comments received. The final version, which will be submitted (immediately) to the SIS Area Director with our request to publish, is here: <a href="https://cwe.ccsds.org/sis/docs/SIS-DTN/Draft%20Documents/LTP%20Update%202021/734x1b1_final_w_draft_corrigendum_2023_07_20_final.docx?d=wf3bc5a7e1ff44cdc86f586c3d429ba44">https://cwe.ccsds.org/sis/docs/SIS-DTN/Draft%20Documents/LTP%20Update%202021/734x1b1_final_w_draft_corrigendum_2023_07_20_final.docx?d=wf3bc5a7e1ff44cdc86f586c3d429ba44</a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>We continued in our resolution of BPv7 RIDs. Of the 102 total RIDs received, we have resolved 68, leaving 34 remaining. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Today we addressed RIDs captured in rows 25-36 of the spreadsheet, which is fewer than I’d hoped, but several required substantial discussion. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The RID on Row 36 bears particular mention. It requests that there be an item in the PICS section A5.5 for each subsection of section 5 in RFC 9171. While we agree with that statement, we do not feel that it is sufficient. In order to make informed decisions about the use of a particular implementation, the PICS should indicate which “SHOULD” and “MAY” statements have been implemented, in addition to the “SHALL” statements. Indeed, documenting implementation of the SHALL statements merely informs us about compliance to the minimal requirements of the specification. Information about the optional elements of the specification guides the user on fitness for purpose of a particular implementation. While important, resolving this RID to this level of detail may constitute a substantial amount of work. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The current RID resolution spreadsheet is here: <a href="https://cwe.ccsds.org/sis/docs/SIS-DTN/Draft%20Documents/BPv7%20for%20CCSDS/Agency%20Review%20June%202023/Copy%20of%20BPv7%20Agency%20Review%20RIDS%2020230720.xlsx?d=w3bf0735fab8240f09dcc5c06b4241725">https://cwe.ccsds.org/sis/docs/SIS-DTN/Draft%20Documents/BPv7%20for%20CCSDS/Agency%20Review%20June%202023/Copy%20of%20BPv7%20Agency%20Review%20RIDS%2020230720.xlsx?d=w3bf0735fab8240f09dcc5c06b4241725</a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I have not yet begun to incorporate RID resolutions into the word file that went out for agency review. (That’s almost correct, I slipped up today and removed a section that messed up numbering in section 3.3 – apologies.)<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Again, thanks to all who have contributed, whether you were able to join today or not. I will not be able to join the call next week, but am hoping that Tamer and/or Keith can help us make further progress in resolving Felix’s 6 remaining RIDs, Marc’s <o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>