[Cesg-all] Re: Results of CESG poll closing 13 April 2012

Sat May 5 10:30:10 EDT 2012

I.e., Results of CESG polls closing 13 April 20124 May 2012

At 10:27 AM 5/5/2012, CCSDS Secretariat wrote:
>CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2012-04-001 
>Approval to release CCSDS 521.0-P-1.1,  Mission 
>Operations Message Abstraction Layer (Pink 
>Sheets, Issue 1.1) for CCSDS Agency review
>Results of CESG poll beginning 9 April 2012 and ending 4 May 2012:
>
>                  Abstain:  1 (20%) (Calzolari)
>  Approve Unconditionally:  1 (20%) (Peccia)
>  Approve with Conditions:  3 (60%) (Shames, Barkley, Scott)
>  Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)
>
>CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:
>
>      Peter Shames (Approve with 
> Conditions):  This version of the MAL 
> introduces some new concepts the consequences 
> of which do not appear to have been thoroughly 
> thought through.  See attached mark-ups.
>
>The most significant is the notion that 
>alternative data type specification languages 
>other than those defined in the MAL might be 
>used (Sec 4.1.1 and elsewhere).  How do you 
>achieve interoperability, or even know what 
>encoding has been used, if this sort of free 
>adoption of other data type spec languages is 
>allowed?  Shouldn't there be some sort of 
>universal config message, or MIME type spec, or 
>something else used to signal the encoding actually being used?
>
>Other technical and editorial issues have been 
>identified in the text, but this one is particularly troubling.
>
>      Erik Barkley (Approve with 
> Conditions):  1) Pg 3-1 needs a proper 
> reference (ie fix "...It is detailed in 0.")
>
>2) Pg 4-25 -- the File type has been added and 
>MIME type governance is indicated via what 
>appears to be descriptive text citing an IANA 
>URL 
>(http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/index.html). 
>This should be formally indicated as normative 
>(if that is the intent) and properly cited as a controlling reference.
>
>      Keith Scott (Approve with Conditions):  I 
> request that the schema for the MAL service 
> specification and the 'normative XML for the 
> MAL specification' mentioned in section 6 of 
> the Pink Sheets be available to Agency Reviewers.
>
>Why is the 'normative XML for the MAL 
>specification, validated against the XML schema' 
>mentioned in section 6 (nominally to be located 
>at 
>'http://sanaregistry.org/r/malschemas/mal.xsd' 
>(nominally) a schema itself?  If this is xml 
>that validates against a schema, shouldn't it be an xml file?
>
>
>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
>
>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2012-04-002 
>Approval to publish CCSDS 881.0-M-1,  Spacecraft 
>Onboard Interface Services—RFID-Based Inventory 
>Management Systems (Magenta Book, Issue 1)
>Results of CESG poll beginning 15 April 2012 and ending 4 May 2012:
>
>                  Abstain:  1 (16.67%) (Calzolari)
>  Approve Unconditionally:  4 (66.67%) (Peccia, Barkley, Taylor, Scott)
>  Approve with Conditions:  1 (16.67%) (Shames)
>  Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)
>
>CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:
>
>      Peter Shames (Approve with 
> Conditions):  This document is about to be 
> published as a Magenta Book.  It appears to 
> have passed agency review.  In reading through 
> the document I find that while it conforms to 
> the OLD definition for an Application Profile 
> Magenta Book, it actually conforms to the 
> current Utilization Profile style of Blue 
> Book.  Furthermore, the normative content is 
> slight, consisting of exactly pages 3-1 and 
> 3-2.  The rest of the 44 pages of the document 
> are either explanatory Green Book material or boilerplate.
>
>Based on these facts, it would have been 
>preferable to publish this as two documents, a 
>slim Blue Book and a companion Green 
>Book.  However, if there are no other objections 
>raised about this from the other CESG members or 
>the CCSDS tech editor I am content to approve it 
>for publication, with the strong suggestion that 
>we be more careful of these issues in the future.
>
>[Position of CCSDS tech editor:  This is an 
>instance where a project was well underway when 
>the new rules were adopted.  Breaking the book 
>up into Blue and Green volumes at this point 
>SHOULD necessitate an additional Agency review, 
>the benefit of which would seem not to justify 
>the resource expenditure.  Therefore unless 
>other CESG members feel strongly that the 
>document should be recast, the Secretariat will proceed with CMC polling.]
>
>Total Respondents:  6
>
>All Areas responded to this question.
>
>
>
>SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Approved with Conditions
>PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            Generate CMC poll
>
>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2012-04-003 
>Approval of Corrigendum 1 to CCSDS 401.0-B-21, 
>Radio Frequency and Modulation Systems-Part 1: 
>Earth Stations and Spacecraft (Blue Book, Issue 21, July 2011)
>Results of CESG poll beginning 15 April 2012 and ending 4 May 2012:
>
>                  Abstain:  3 (42.86%) (Barkley, Taylor, Scott)
>  Approve Unconditionally:  4 (57.14%) (Shames, Peccia, Calzolari, Moury)
>  Approve with Conditions:  0 (0%)
>  Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)
>
>Total Respondents:  7
>
>All Areas responded to this question.
>
>
>
>SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Approved Unconditionally
>PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            Generate CMC poll
>
>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg-all/attachments/20120505/94dafc2c/attachment.htm