[Cesg-all] Result of CESG poll closing 15 October 2010

[CCSDS Secretariat]

CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2010-09-003 
Approval of updated version of proposed new issue 
of CCSDS 520.0-G-2, Mission Operations Services Concept
Results of CESG poll beginning 20 September 2010 and ending 15 October 2010:

                  Abstain:  2 (33.33%) (Taylor, Gerner)
  Approve Unconditionally:  1 (16.67%) (Thompson)
  Approve with Conditions:  3 (50%) (Shames, Barkley, Durst)
  Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

      Peter Shames (Approve with 
Conditions):  All of the technical issues raised 
during the previous review have largely been 
dealt with in this version.  There are still a 
number of editorial changes that are needed, 
including some that deal with inaccuracies in the 
revised text.  The document is also missing a 
large number of  references to CCSDS documents 
that are identified in the text.  See attached.

      Erik Barkley (Approve with 
Conditions):  The document is much improved from 
the previous review version. My previous review 
conditions can be summarized as a) more direct 
statement of concept, b) increased emphasis on 
description of the services themselves, c) 
relationship of the services to the rest of the CCSDS.

With regard to the previous conditions:

a) the document definitely reads better however I 
believe the document could still benefit from a 
more direct statement of the concept itself. For 
example, it struck this reviewer that the first 
three paragraphs under section 3.3.3.2.3 (Common 
Object Model) could be safely removed from the 
document.   In a similar vein, in section 3.3.4.2 
(Capability Sets) there is discussion that 
implementation "should be able to determine
" And 
that "It should be possible for the service 
consumer to interact
". These types of statements 
although offered as rationale tends to cloud the 
definition of the concept – a more direct 
statement of the concept I believe would ensue by 
simply just removing these two sentences. (The 
last sentence in this paragraph in fact actually 
directly states the concept thereby removing the 
"possible" and "may" doubts that arise from the 
earlier rationale statements).  And I believe 
there are other examples.   Overall this is 
probably more of a minor quibble than really 
substantiative but I believe it does not hurt to 
keep the general notion that CCSDS documents tend 
to state just the facts and in this case that 
would translate to as forcefully and directly 
stating the concept as possible. I will readily 
admit that this is more a matter of style and so 
can perhaps be prioritized as the lowest (and 
perhaps therefore somewhat negotiable relative to 
resource availability) for resolving.


b)  increased emphasis of the services: much 
better. I would suggest keeping in mind that 
perhaps as the actual service specifications are 
developed this may need revisiting but for 
purposes of this review I believe this condition can be stated as resolved.

c) relationship of the services to the rest of 
CCSDS: much better.  I may be a bit biased, but I 
believe the Cross Support Services should receive 
the same treatment as the other areas in terms of 
calling out the applicable recommendations to be 
utilized etc.  This would then be my top 
condition for resolving and I am willing to work 
with the SM&C WG group to provide an appropriate paragraph or diagram etc.

I find no new conditions for approving the document.

      Bob Durst (Approve with Conditions):  The 
document is much improved.  In 2.3.3, it’s good 
to see AMS mentioned in both the ground/space and 
ground/ground sections, but it also should be 
mentioned in the on-board section: SOIS has 
agreed that AMS is a suitable binding of the SOIS 
Message Transfer Service requirements, and Stuart 
Fowell has implemented on-board AMS as part of 
SciSys’s SOIS prototype for ESTEC.

Section 2.4.1 misstates the nature of MAL.  It 
states that MAL defines protocol syntax and 
semantics, which it does not; it only states the 
*requirements* that a conforming protocol’s 
syntax and semantics must satisfy.  Section 2.4.2 
gets it right: “The MAL is an abstract Platform 
Independent Model (PIM) which all other services 
are defined in terms of
”  Section 3.3.3.3 is pretty clear about this.

Total Respondents:  6

All Areas responded to this question.

SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Approved with Conditions
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            Await resolution of comments

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2010-10-001 CESG 
final approval of SANA Yellow Book, Space 
Assigned Numbers Authority (SANA)--Role, 
Responsibilities, Policies, and Procedures
Results of CESG poll beginning 7 October 2010 and ending 15 October 2010:

                  Abstain:  0 (0%)
  Approve Unconditionally:  3 (60%) (Shames, Peccia, Durst)
  Approve with Conditions:  2 (40%) (Barkley, Gerner)
  Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

      Erik Barkley (Approve with Conditions):  Minor editorial RID:

Section 3.11,  from "...registry may 
grandfathered..." to "...registry may be grandfathered..."

      Jean-Luc Gerner (Approve with 
Conditions):  In section A.1.1.1.1.1.1.2, it is said:
"The recommendations of this document request 
SANA to create the following registry(ies)."

It should read instead:
"In support to this recommendation, SANA has 
created the following registry(ies)"

Justification for the proposed change: the user 
of the standard needs to know what registries are 
applicable, not that at the creation of the 
standard a request has been placed while the 
final outcome is not reported to him.

(other such 'requests' appear further down in the 
same section and should be corrected the same way


Total Respondents:  5

No response was received from the following Area(s):

      SOIS

SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Approved with Conditions
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            Resolve comments, generate CMC poll

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 520x0g3_tracked-changes-ps.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 2012672 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg-all/attachments/20101016/f11b62a8/520x0g3_tracked-changes-ps-0001.doc