[Cesg-all] Results of CESG polls closing 7 February 2012

[CCSDS Secretariat]

CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2012-01-002 
Approval to release CCSDS 352.0-R-1,  CCSDS 
Cryptographic Algorithms (Red Book, Issue 1) for CCSDS Agency review
Results of CESG poll beginning 20 January 2012 and ending 7 February 2012:

                  Abstain:  0 (0%)
  Approve Unconditionally:  6 (100%) (Shames, 
Peccia, Barkley, Calzolari, Moury, Scott)
  Approve with Conditions:  0 (0%)
  Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

      Erik Barkley (Approve Unconditionally):  A 
relatively minor comment that may be processed as 
RID during the agency reviews:

The recommendation has several shall statements 
that begin with phrasing such "CCSDS missions" 
and "CCSDS implementations".   To be clear, CCSDS 
neither flies missions nor provides mission 
implementations.  The recommendation shall 
statements can and should be much more to the 
point re the shall statements.  For example, as 
section 4.2.2 is about HMAC Hash algorithm, would 
it not be sufficient to simply state "SHA as 
specified in FIPS 180-2 shall be used" 
?    Also,  4.3.1.1,, 4.4.3 are much more to the 
point in this regard and may serve as an example for better shall statements.


Total Respondents:  6

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

      SOIS

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

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2012-01-003 
Approval to publish CCSDS 912.11-O-1,  Space Link 
Extension—Enhanced Forward CLTU Service Specification (Orange Book, Issue 1)
Results of CESG poll beginning 20 January 2012 and ending 7 February 2012:

                  Abstain:  1 (16.67%) (Scott)
  Approve Unconditionally:  2 (33.33%) (Shames, Barkley)
  Approve with Conditions:  0 (0%)
  Disapprove with Comment:  3 (50%) (Peccia, Calzolari, Moury)

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

      Nestor Peccia (Disapprove with Comment):  I 
fully concurred with SLS AD and DAD

      Gian Paolo Calzolari (Disapprove with 
Comment):  SLS Area has big problems with this Orange Book.

More than an Orange Book, the document looks as a 
fully approved CCSDS standard with the risk that 
it can relay a wrong message to readers; i.e. it 
seems that what the book proposes is fully in 
line with current standards and/or fully shared 
and approved by CCSDS community. Conversely there 
are many aspects that are not (fully) aligned 
with current CCSDS Books especially for SLS Area.

The main comments are about
- terminology often conflicting with current blue books
- missed remarks about features not complaint with current blue books

In the attached  document there are some detailed 
comments. As their fixing requires some extensive 
action, it was not possible to limit the response 
to approve with conditions. This  disapproval 
implies no prejudice to further submission after fixes.

      Gilles Moury (Disapprove with 
Comment):  Instead of extending the F-CLTU SLE 
service, it would be less confusing that NASA 
orange book specifies a new SLE service called 
"“Forward AOS Frame/CADU Service” ". It would 
avoid redefining/modifying in an Orange Book 
existing approved CCSDS protocols and definitions.
Comments provided by GP.Calzolari show that there 
are many extensions or even modifications of 
existing SLS blue books definitions. Those could 
cause confusion in the CCSDS implementers 
community even though this is an Orange Book.

      Keith Scott (Abstain):  Section 1.5.2: it 
might be a little strong to say that this 
Experimental Specification is *part of* a suite 
of documents specifying the SLE services.  Maybe 
'...this Experimental Specification is 
*consistent with* the suite of 
documents...'?  The issue is that the other 
documents in the suite are recommendations and 
form the actual SLE service definitions.  This 
document is Experimental and so doesn't have the 
same permanence/standing as the others.  I think 
that retaining the SLE document tree definitions 
and figure is worthwhile, just clarifying the 
relationship of the current Experimental document to the rest.

Section 1.6 (Definitions): where possible 
wouldn't it make sense to replicate the 
definitions in section 1.6, rather than just 
listing the terms?  I recognize that copyrights may prevent this in some cases.

Is the box on the right side of Figure 2-2 
supposed to be 'CLTU Transfer Service *USER*' (as 
opposed to 'CLTU Transfer Service Use')?  If 
'Use' is correct, should the font be serifed as 
in the 'Production' and 'Provision' cases?


Total Respondents:  6

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

      SOIS



SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Disapproved
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            No Action

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 912x11o0_CESG_Approval+SLS.v1.0.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 65028 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg-all/attachments/20120208/47984eec/912x11o0_CESG_ApprovalSLS.v1.0-0001.pdf