<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: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=utf-8">
<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;}
@font-face
{font-family:-webkit-standard;
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.E-MailFormatvorlage18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.E-MailFormatvorlage19
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 2.0cm 70.85pt;}
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="DE" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Hello Keith, all,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">just a clarification about the review process and what’s happening afterwards.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">The RID report (excel sheet) has to be cross-checked by the RID originator, so that the corresponding RIDs can be closed. As such, there is no need for running an addition agency review
just to check whether the RIDs have been correctly addressed. As a matter of fact, the completed RIDs report is one of the items to be attached to the area resolution towards CESG, when the publication of the book is targeted. This is something I’ve discussed
and clarified with Tom last week. As the point of running or not a new review, Tom clearly told me that in case new material is added to the book, which was not either requested during agency reviews or not made available before that agency review started,
then indeed a new agency review must be started. A second agency review, differently from the first one, does not go through CESG approval and as such its start should happen more quickly. Nevertheless, it is still about 60 days duration. Tom told me that
in the clauses included in the CCSDS yellow book about Org&Proc open the door for changing the duration of the review, hence possibly allowing for shorter reviews. But as a matter of fact, all agencies always take the full bunch of 60 days (or even more),
so that he does not recommend to have a shorter review, as it may preclude some agencies to finalise their review in time. This said and based on the iterations had in the previous weeks on RIDs and the document, I’m afraid a second agency review is indeed
necessary. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">But we can certainly discuss further on this offline and then at the next telco.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Tomaso<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Von:</b> SIS-DTN <sis-dtn-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org> <b>Im Auftrag von
</b>Keith Scott via SIS-DTN<br>
<b>Gesendet:</b> Donnerstag, 6. Juni 2024 17:50<br>
<b>An:</b> sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org<br>
<b>Betreff:</b> [Sis-dtn] Telecon 20240606 Notes<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Second Agency Review for BPv7</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">We're going to go over the BPv7 RIDS spreadsheet next week. Goal is to determine whether or not we need a second agency review (do the RIDS introduce significant technical changes to the document).<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Relevant CCSDS Document: <a href="https://public.ccsds.org/Pubs/A02x1y4c2.pdf">
Organization and Processes for the Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems, CCSDS A02.1-Y-4</a> (and its associated corrigenda, which I don't think impact this work) <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">In particular: <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-left:30.0pt;margin-right:0cm">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"-webkit-standard",serif;color:black">6.2.5.2 Once review of a document has been authorized, that document may be reviewed more than once without additional polling of the CMC:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-left:30.0pt;margin-right:0cm">
<blockquote style="margin-left:30.0pt;margin-right:0cm">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"-webkit-standard",serif;color:black">a) if technical issues are identified in the course of a review, those issues must be resolved and the review must be repeated before approval can be sought
for a change of document status;</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-left:30.0pt;margin-right:0cm">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"-webkit-standard",serif;color:black">b) increasing draft issue numbers shall be assigned to successive versions of the draft document released in successive iterations of the review (see annex
E);</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-left:30.0pt;margin-right:0cm">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"-webkit-standard",serif;color:black">c) if substantive changes are made to a document that has completed review without technical comment, the Secretariat shall conduct a final review in which
Agencies can approve or reject the document but may not suggest additional changes;</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-left:30.0pt;margin-right:0cm">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"-webkit-standard",serif;color:black">d) the Secretariat shall follow the same procedures for posting review materials and review announcement for each iteration of a review.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">DTN Reference Scenarios for Earth Observation, Lunar and Mars</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Looking to get _3_ scenarios (Earth-observing, Lunar, Mars).<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">3 scenarios (do NOT get down in the weeks arguing over exact data rates<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">See the recording / slides for proposed scenarios (topologies including different agency ownership, connectivity, data rates)<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Felix put the slides on the CCSDS site <a href="https://cwe.ccsds.org/sis/docs/SIS-DTN/Other%20Documents/DTN%20Reference%20Scenario">
in this folder</a>.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> --keith<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>