[Cesg-all] Results of CESG poll closing 15 March 2012
CCSDS Secretariat
tomg at aiaa.org
Fri Mar 16 13:00:25 EST 2012
CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2012-02-005
Approval to publish CCSDS 650.0-M-2, Reference
Model for an Open Archival Information System (OAIS) (Magenta Book, Issue 2)
Results of CESG poll beginning 24 February 2012 and ending 9 March 2012:
Abstain: 2 (50%) (Calzolari, Scott)
Approve Unconditionally: 1 (25%) (Peccia)
Approve with Conditions: 1 (25%) (Shames)
Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:
Peter Shames (Approve with
Conditions): The document has been improved
somewhat since its original publication, but many
of the materials that have been updated were
modified without enough attention to detail.
All of the models in Sec 4 have been "colorized",
but they are inconsistent in their use of
colors. They are also a real mish-mash of
styles, with different drawing objects and colors
being used to represent what should be the same
object types in various diagrams. It is
confusing at best and adhere to no known, or
described, style. RASDS and/or UML/SysML styles
should have been adopted consistently.
There are also a number of definition and
terminology issues that should be addressed during this document update.
Issues are marked in the attached PDF file.
Total Respondents: 4
No response was received from the following Area(s):
CSS
SOIS
SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with Conditions
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate
CMC poll after conditions have been addressed
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2012-03-001
Approval to publish CCSDS 871.1-M-1, Spacecraft
Onboard Interface Services—Device Data Pooling Service (Magenta Book, Issue 1)
Results of CESG poll beginning 1 March 2012 and ending 15 March 2012:
Abstain: 1 (20%) (Calzolari)
Approve Unconditionally: 2 (40%) (Peccia, Taylor)
Approve with Conditions: 2 (40%) (Shames, Scott)
Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:
Peter Shames (Approve with
Conditions): There are several items that should be addressed. Foremost:
- incorrect use of term SAP to refer to user, not service provider
- incomplete PICS Pro Forma
See attached RIDs
Keith Scott (Approve with Conditions): See attached RIDs
Total Respondents: 5
No response was received from the following Area(s):
CSS
SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with Conditions
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate
CMC poll after conditions have been addressed
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2012-03-002
Approval to publish CCSDS 875.0-M-1, Spacecraft
Onboard Interface Services—Message Transfer Service (Magenta Book, Issue 1)
Results of CESG poll beginning 1 March 2012 and ending 15 March 2012:
Abstain: 1 (20%) (Calzolari)
Approve Unconditionally: 2 (40%) (Peccia, Taylor)
Approve with Conditions: 2 (40%) (Shames, Scott)
Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:
Peter Shames (Approve with
Conditions): The PICS Pro Forma is incomplete. See attached RID.
Keith Scott (Approve with Conditions): I
have the following comments on the
document. Items 2 and 3a are I think actual
technical issues. The rest can be considered editorial.
==== Item 1 ====
Section 1.5.1 seems superfluous -- the document
does not define any packet formats or other
structures that have to do with bit positions.
==== Item 2 ====
I don't think the Mandatory Features in the
Service Conformance Statement Proforma should be
'pre-checked' -- they sort of HAVE to be checked
by the implementer, but it's up to them to do it.
==== Item 3a ====
Section 3.2(c) references signaling from the
underlying layer (Red/Yellow/Green) which may be
*link* dependent. If the MTS is implemented via
the AMS protocol and if AMS is run over something
that uses a network layer (assume, for the
purpose of argument, that TCP would meet the
requirements of 3.2(b)) then the signaling might
involve a path, not just a single link. Maybe c)
could say [my highlighting via **]:
--
c) provide a means for signalling the result of
data transmission which may be **specific to the
underlying data transport mechanism** (at least
Red=failure, Yellow=unknown or partial, Green=OK).
--
That would cover link- and network- layer signaling.
==== Item 3b ====
Only one 'l' in 'signaling' (there are two in item (c))
==== Item 4 ====
3.3.1 (i):
I think the text 'Use of the SOIS Subnetwork
Packet Service is recommended for Message
Transfer Service.' should be a NOTE (it's a recommendation, not a requirement).
==== Item 5 ====
It seems like the 'how to deploy over the SOIS
Subnetwork Packet Service' requirements, like
3.3.1 (k) should be in one place. Annex D in the
document does that, in an informative
(non-normative) way. It seems odd to have little
bits of normative 'how to delploy this over SOIS
subnetwork packet service' text scattered
throughout the document and then to NOT have
those reflected in a NORMATIVE annex. I realize
that this is probably too difficult to fix at
this stage without putting the book out for
another agency review, and I'm not pushing hard for a change here.
Total Respondents: 5
No response was received from the following Area(s):
CSS
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: 650x0m11_CESG_Approval-SEA.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 4947284 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg-all/attachments/20120316/bedd7b6b/650x0m11_CESG_Approval-SEA-0001.pdf
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: RID SEA-001 871x1m0 CESG Archive.zip
Type: application/zip
Size: 6187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg-all/attachments/20120316/bedd7b6b/RIDSEA-001871x1m0CESGArchive-0001.zip
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SIS_RIDS.zipx
Type: application/zip
Size: 7608 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg-all/attachments/20120316/bedd7b6b/SIS_RIDS-0001.zip
-------------- next part --------------
REVIEW ITEM DISPOSITION (RID):
RID INITIATION FORM
AGENCY RID NUMBER: SEA-001
SUBMITTING ORGANIZATION: SEA AD
------------------------------------------------------------------
REVIEWER'S NAME: Peter Shames
CODE: SEA AD
E-MAIL ADDRESS: peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov
TELEPHONE: +1.818.354.5740
------------------------------------------------------------------
DOCUMENT NUMBER: CCSDS 875x0m0 Draft Magenta Book, CESG Review
DOCUMENT NAME: SOIS Message Transfer Service
DATE ISSUED: March 2012
PAGE NUMBER: A-1 PARAGRAPH NUMBER: N/A
RID SHORT TITLE: PICS Pro Forma is not complete
------------------------------------------------------------------
DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED CHANGE: (Use From: "..." To "..." format)
From:
Mandatory features with a check mark
To:
PICS Pro Forma tables should include a column for mandatory and optional features, a column for the implementer to indicate compliance, and a column for notes. They should identify the section of the document that they reference. See CCSDS Procedures manual example.
------------------------------------------------------------------
CATEGORY OF REQUESTED CHANGE:
Technical Fact ___ Recommended _X_ Editorial ___
NOTES:
TECHNICAL FACT: Major technical change of sufficient magnitude as to
render the document inaccurate and unacceptable if not
corrected. (Supporting analysis/rationale is essential.)
RECOMMENDED: Change of a nature that would, if incorporated, produce
a marked improvement in document quality and acceptance.
EDITORIAL: Typographical or other factual error needing correction.
(This type of change will be made without feedback to submitter.)
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUPPORTING ANALYSIS:
In a PICS proforma it would be usual to leave the boxes unchecked, but to indicate which are mandatory and which are optional. The check boxes are filed when the PICS is created for an implementation. It would also be normal to add a "Notes" column that the implementor could use to include any notes about the implementation.
------------------------------------------------------------------
DISPOSITION:
More information about the CESG-all
mailing list