[Cesg-all] Result of CESG polls closing 22 February 2011

[CCSDS Secretariat]

CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2011-02-001 Approval to release CCSDS 
131.2-R-1, Flexible Advanced Coding and Modulation Scheme for High 
Rate Telemetry Applications (Red Book, Issue 1) for CCSDS Agency review
Results of CESG poll beginning 8 February 2011 and ending 22 February 2011:

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

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

      Gian Paolo Calzolari (Approve Unconditionally):  The Red Book 
submitted to CESG review doesn't contain information on patents 
relevant for the proposed technology, because such information would 
have been incomplete and partial. It shall be added before 
publication but it does not prevent starting Agency review.
A relevant remark should be added by Secretariat to the call for Agency Review.


Total Respondents:  5

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

      SEA



SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Approved Unconditionally
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            Generate CMC poll

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2011-02-002 Approval to release of 
CCSDS 131.4-R-1, TM Channel Coding Profiles (Red Book, Issue 1) for 
CCSDS Agency review
Results of CESG poll beginning 9 February 2011 and ending 22 February 2011:

                  Abstain:  1 (16.67%) (Durst)
  Approve Unconditionally:  5 (83.33%) (Shames, Peccia, Barkley, 
Taylor, Calzolari)
  Approve with Conditions:  0 (0%)
  Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

      Peter Shames (Approve Unconditionally):  For the record, the 
comments resulting from the initial CESG poll concerning this 
document (CESG-P-2010-11-003) were DISMISSED OUT OF HAND, and not 
"addressed".  Clearly these issues will be revisited as the document 
gets agency review.

      Erik Barkley (Approve Unconditionally):  Following may be 
considered as RID to be processed as part of agency review depending 
upon SLS AD and CESG conclusion:  Although called out in the 
informative references (Annex B), there is no direct statement of how 
the coding profiles fit relative to SFCG frequency and bandwidth 
utilization recommendations (e.g, SFCG-1R5).   If these profiles are 
fully compliant with all applicable SFCG recommendations a statement 
to that affect is suggested.  If not, the differences, and rationale 
should be indicated, perhaps with follow-up work with SFCG if needed.


Total Respondents:  6

All Areas responded to this question.


SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Approved Unconditionally
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            Generate CMC poll

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *