[Cesg-all] Re: Result of CESG poll closing 25 July 2011

[CCSDS Secretariat]

(Resending with correct attachment.)

CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2011-07-001 
Approval to release CCSDS 881.0-R-1,  Spacecraft 
Onboard Interface Services—RFID-Based Inventory 
Management Systems (Red Book, Issue 1) for CCSDS Agency review
Results of CESG poll beginning 25 July 2011 and ending 8 August 2011:

                  Abstain:  0 (0%)
  Approve Unconditionally:  5 (71.43%) (Peccia, 
Barkley, Taylor, Calzolari, Moury)
  Approve with Conditions:  2 (28.57%) (Shames, Scott)
  Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

      Peter Shames (Approve with 
Conditions):  This document is cast as a Magenta 
Book, but its content is more like Green Book 
material.  It reads like a survey or discussion 
of possible standards that might be applied in 
certain circumstances, but most often it fails to 
provide concrete guidance or recommendations that 
are actionable, even in an application profile sense.

See attached mark-ups for concrete identified 
issues.  The WG ought to consider just what it 
wants this document to be and re-work it accordingly.

      Erik Barkley (Approve 
Unconditionally):  Minor editorial comments (no 
reason to delay agency reviews):

1) The document should express distance in units 
of meters (not feet -- see page 2-5 as an 
example) as I believe CCSDS utilizes MKS

2) Suggest changing "specifies" to "addresses" on 
pg 2-6; rational is that this is a recommended 
practice, not a recommended standard (i.e, 
specification of RFID tag and reader 
interoperability is in fact addressed by external 
standards for which practices are being recommended via this document)

      Keith Scott (Approve with 
Conditions):  Section 3.1 states that "The 
recommended practices are presented in 
preferential, or priority, order," but only one 
practice seems to be recommended?  Can this text be removed?

Section 3.2.2 does not contain any concrete 
requirements.  Either concrete requirements 
should be included or the section should be removed.

The tables (3-3, 3-4, 3-5, and 3-6) in section 
3.2.5 are all in non-normative (Discussion) 
sections.  Since the tables contain the bulk of 
the application profile recommendations, they 
either need to be normative or the whole notion 
of application profiles should be 
informative.  Given that there are 'Additional 
Testing Recommended' entries in tables 3-3 and 
3-4, and 'Further Testing Required' in 3-5, I 
think the entire application profiles section 
could be made informative (rather than normative) with little loss.


Total Respondents:  7

All Areas responded to this question.



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

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 881x0r0_CESG_Approval-ps.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 726408 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg-all/attachments/20110801/bb9d98e0/881x0r0_CESG_Approval-ps-0001.pdf