[Cesg-all] Results of CESG polls closing 28 October 2011

[CCSDS Secretariat]

CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2011-10-001 Approval to publish CCSDS 
350.6-G-1,  Space Missions Key Management Concept (Green Book, Issue 1)
Results of CESG poll beginning 12 October 2011 and ending 26 October 2011:

                  Abstain:  0 (0%)
  Approve Unconditionally:  7 (100%) (Shames, Peccia, Barkley, 
Taylor, Calzolari, Moury, Scott)
  Approve with Conditions:  0 (0%)
  Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

      Keith Scott (Approve Unconditionally):  I have two editorial 
questions that do not affect the suitability of the document for publication:

Section 1.1

The concepts described herein are the baseline for the CCSDS 
standardization activities in respect to security services and, 
**more concrete**, key management schemes for space missions.

The concepts described herein are the baseline for the CCSDS 
standardization activities in respect to security services and, 
**more concretely**, key management schemes for space missions.

----------------

Table 4-1
TPK Derivation **Less** master keys required Mission security bound to
Security of master keys the security of the (secret)
improved derivation function

shouldn't this be "*Fewer* master keys required"?


Total Respondents:  7

All Areas responded to this question.



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

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2011-10-002 Approval to publish CCSDS 
652.1-M-1,  Requirements for Bodies Providing Audit and Certification 
of Candidate Trustworthy Digital Repositories (Magenta Book, Issue 1)
Results of CESG poll beginning 14 October 2011 and ending 28 October 2011:

                  Abstain:  1 (20%) (Moury)
  Approve Unconditionally:  2 (40%) (Peccia, Scott)
  Approve with Conditions:  2 (40%) (Shames, Barkley)
  Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

      Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions):  I still find the 
language in Sec 3 to be troubling.  I suspect that it would be seen 
as rather unusual or even a conflict of interest by ISO to have this 
sort of self referential language in most ISO standards:

"The [Primary TDR Authorisation Body] PTAB will also accredit other 
certification bodies. It will consist of internationally recognized 
experts in digital preservation, the membership building on members 
of the authors of CCSDS 652.0-R-1/ISO 16363 (reference [1])."

This issue was raised in the CESG-P-2010-07-002 poll in July 
2010.  The  text is still present in Sec 1.6.2.2 and Sec 3.  This 
general topic of COI is one that has a lot of discussion on the web 
and elsewhere.

The fundamental issue is not whether the people who defined this 
standard are capable of applying it.  The question is whether it is 
appropriate for them to define themselves into the standard as an 
accreditation body that itself does not adhere to any higher level 
standards or accreditation body.

CCSDS has no language addressing this issue, except for patents, but 
ISO does.  See ISO/IEC 17021:2011.  See also relevant language from 
several other standards organizations.

My recommendation is that the PTAB be identified in this document in this way:

"The PTAB will also accredit other certification bodies. It should 
consist of internationally recognized experts in digital 
preservation.  The PTAB will be formed and governed under the 
auspices of TBD organization. "

I am not certain just which organization should be the "PTAB parent", 
but there should be some organization that it is itself governed 
by.  Perhaps some international body such as the IAF AAPG would be 
appropriate 
(http://www.iaf.nu/articles/Accreditation_Auditing_Practices_Group_%28AAPG%29/20), 
or some international body related to digital libraries and other 
such repositories.

      Erik Barkley (Approve with Conditions):  1) the document should 
have a proper release date indicated on the cover sheet and on the 
footer of each page. It currently indicates October 2010. I believe 
this should be stated as October 2011.

2) Concur with Peter Shames' comments with regard to the revision of 
PTAB identification.  As the document is currently written it calls 
for PTAB membership to overlap with that of the CCSDS Digital 
Repository Audit and Certification Working Group.  I do not believe 
this is feasible as I suspect this would first require some sort of 
charter change for CCSDS as a whole to fund and establish such an 
ongoing/standing working group.

      Keith Scott (Approve Unconditionally):  I have one question 
that does not (I believe) impact the suitability of the document for 
publication.  Section 3.0 Page 3-1 states:

"It [the Primary TDR Authorisation Body] will consist of 
internationally recognized experts in digital preservation, the 
membership overlapping with the membership of the CCSDS Digital 
Repository Audit and Certification Working Group, which produced 
CCSDS 652.0-M-1/ISO 16363 (reference [1]).

What happens when the CCSDS Digital Repository Audit and 
Certification Working Group is finished and disbands, or is this WG 
an ongoing group akin to SANA?  If this is meant to mean an overlap 
with the current set of members (regardless of whether the WG exists 
or not) what happens when the current membership of the CCSDS WG is 
no longer working in the field?  Could this say something like:

"It will consist of internationally recognized experts in digital 
preservation, preferably including CCSDS members with expertise in the field."


I did not obtain a copy of ISO/IEC 17021:2006 and so cannot comment 
on the applicability of its principles (Sections 4, 5.1, 6.1, 7.1, 8.1)


Total Respondents:  5

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

      SOIS

SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Approved with Conditions
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            Generate CMC poll after 
conditions have been addressed

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: iso_17021-2011.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1305618 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg-all/attachments/20111029/8a04d426/iso_17021-2011-0001.pdf