[Cesg-all] Results of CESG polls ending 12 October 2012

[CCSDS Secretariat]

CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2012-09-001 
Approval to publish CCSDS 352.0-B-1,  CCSDS 
Cryptographic Algorithms (Blue Book, Issue 1)
Results of CESG poll beginning 30 September 2012 and ending 12 October 2012:

                  Abstain:  0 (0%)
  Approve Unconditionally:  4 (100%) (Shames, Peccia, Moury, Scott)
  Approve with Conditions:  0 (0%)
  Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

Total Respondents:  4

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

      CSS
      SOIS

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

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2012-09-002 
Approval to publish CCSDS 351.0-M-1,  Security 
Architecture for Space Data Systems (Magenta Book, Issue 1)
Results of CESG poll beginning 30 September 2012 and ending 12 October 2012:

                  Abstain:  0 (0%)
  Approve Unconditionally:  4 (100%) (Shames, Peccia, Moury, Scott)
  Approve with Conditions:  0 (0%)
  Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

Total Respondents:  4

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

      CSS
      SOIS

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

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2012-09-003 
Approval to publish CCSDS 521.2-M-1,  Mission 
Operations Message Abstraction Layer—JAVA API (Magenta Book, Issue 1)
Results of CESG poll beginning 30 September 2012 and ending 12 October 2012:

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

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

      Peter Shames (Approve with 
Conditions):  There are a number of items in this 
document that appear to be "loose ends" that 
should be tied up before the document is sent out 
for review.  These include the mandatory security 
section (none provided) and SANA approach 
(reference on pg  3-2 bt not provided).  There 
are a number of other topics 9undefined terms, 
weakly defined terms) identified in the body of the text as inserted comments.

      Keith Scott (Approve Unconditionally):  I'd 
like to see an example of an AMS MALEelementStreamFactory definition such as:
org.ccsds.moims.mo.mal.encoding.protocol.ams
added tot he NOTE after section 7.2.2.4.6

It might also be helpful (if it is in fact correct) to say something like:
"A MALElementOutputStream interface shall be 
defined in order to encode Elements *pursuant to 
the protocol provided to the newFactory() call 
that generated the MALElementInputStream's 
factory*" for section 7.2.4.1 and similar.


Total Respondents:  5

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-2012-09-004 
Approval to publish CCSDS 350.8-G-1,  Information 
Security Glossary of Terms (Green Book, Issue 1)
Results of CESG poll beginning 30 September 2012 and ending 12 October 2012:

                  Abstain:  0 (0%)
  Approve Unconditionally:  4 (80%) (Shames, Peccia, Moury, Scott)
  Approve with Conditions:  1 (20%) (Calzolari)
  Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

      Gian Paolo Calzolari (Approve with 
Conditions):  Coordination with SANA shall be 
addressed (NOT IN THE BOOK) to identify follow up actions.
IMO possible steps are twofold
1) Align definitions in the SEA-SEC books to 
those in the new book via e.g. "Editorial Corrigendum".
2) If #1 above is done, the SANA Glossary is 
simply rebuilt and multiple definition will be 
(almost absent). If #1 above is NOT done the SANA 
Glossary could point out "somehow" that the terms 
from  350.8-G-1 are "preferred".
Considering the timing, the approach could be 
reported e.g. at CESG Meeting in Cleveland.


Total Respondents:  5

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

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 523x1m0_CESG_Approval-sea.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 3198771 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg-all/attachments/20121013/bb16b899/523x1m0_CESG_Approval-sea-0001.pdf