[Cesg-all] Results of CESG polls closing 26 July 2013

[CCSDS Secretariat]

CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2013-06-002 Approval to publish CCSDS 
730.1-G-1, Solar System Internetwork (SSI) Architecture (Green Book, Issue 1)
Results of CESG poll beginning 26 June 2013 and ending 26 July 2013:

                  Abstain:  0 (0%)
  Approve Unconditionally:  3 (60%) (Peccia, Calzolari, Scott)
  Approve with Conditions:  2 (40%) (Shames, Barkley)
  Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

      Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions):  I understand that 
there is a desire to get this published, and I would like to see this 
happen since it fills a useful niche in describing enterprise level 
interactions, but the document, in my opinion, needs some significant work.

The document, in its present form, makes what appear to be some 
unrealistic assumptions about what Stage 1 is and what network 
service providers will be willing to offer.  It also makes the 
similarly unrealistic "Stage 1" assumption that space network service 
providers and science missions operate under the same "authority".  I 
believe that Stage 1 should stick to configurations where there is no 
assumption that the network service providers will offer SSI services 
at all, and that SSI services will all be provided by the 
missions.  Stage 2 can then describe how network service providers 
will participate.  One builds on the other in a natural progression.

There are some significant dis-connects between the approach and 
terminology described here, and what is agreed in the SCCS-ADD 
GB.  This should be sorted out since it is confusing.

The document glibly waves its hands about the role of link layer 
services and does not even point at the SCCS-ADD that describes how 
all of these parts fit together.  It also does a poor job of 
discriminating link layer data flows, network layer data flows, and 
end-to-end logical data flows.  This leads to confusion.

Some of the sections jump into long and wordy descriptions of 
protocols stacks instead of providing some simple diagrams.  And 
there are many diagrams provided in the SCCS-ADD that could be 
directly adopted or referenced instead of providing similar ones.

The document would really benefit from having all of these issues 
resolved.  As it is I think it is too immature to go further.

See attached marked up PDF for explicit feedback.

      Erik Barkley (Approve with Conditions):  A good read, good 
document.  A couple of conditions and a comment follow.

1) Terminology leveling will be very useful to users of CCSDS 
recommendations.  CSA (Cross Support Architecture) document defines, 
among other terms, the following:

Cross Support Service Element (CSSE)
Cross Support Service System (CSSS)
Earth-Spacelink Terminal (ESLT)
Earth User Node (EUN)
Earth Routing Node (ERN)
Space User Node (SUN)
Space Routing Node (SRN)

The SSI ADD uses terms such as

User Node (UN)
Provider Node (PN).

At a minimum it will be useful to have the SSI document indicate how 
its terms relate to the those in the CSA.  I believe this is the 
proper "direction" as the cross support architecture document covers 
both the "traditional" as well as the SSI architectures.

2) Although the concept book is clear that the Network Management 
Plan has not been defined, it strikes me that we may be running a 
risk in advancing the concept without a more complete definition of 
this at least in terms of a more detailed concept. At a minimum, I 
believe the following needs to be stated for the NMP description in the Annex:
a. Verifies that contact plans have been  coherently disseminated
b. Tracks expiration of contact plans and warns of impending SSI "holes"
c. Coordinates "re-starts" of (using CSA terms) ERNs and SRNs for 
those that have "fallen" off the network (due to expired contact plans).



As a general comment, and not a condition, I will note that I was a 
little bit surprised by the user schedule request notion in the 
concept. Especially as it seems to be on a communication by 
communication (link oriented? ) basis. It strikes me that ultimately 
the peering arrangements etc. should be about general traffic flow 
and it's shaping such that the using entities really don't worry at 
all about such requests and that they just simply send data knowing 
that it will get to where its supposed to go within the particular 
quality of service grade needed.

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-2013-07-001 Approval for the Creation 
of the SLS Planetary Communications Working Group
Results of CESG poll beginning 1 July 2013 and ending 26 July 2013:

                  Abstain:  0 (0%)
  Approve Unconditionally:  3 (60%) (Peccia, Calzolari, Moury)
  Approve with Conditions:  0 (0%)
  Disapprove with Comment:  2 (40%) (Shames, Barkley)

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

      Peter Shames (Disapprove with Comment):  It is not at all clear 
why there should be a separate WG for PlaCom from the existing SLS 
working groups dealing with link layer and C&S.  Why isn't this 
specific niche domain just taken up as a new work item in one or more 
existing WGs.

Given constrained resources for CCSDS across all agencies it is hard 
to see how standing up a new WG cannot impact existing effort in 
other existing WGs.

      Erik Barkley (Disapprove with Comment):  The SIG appears to be 
doing good work, but the case to establish a WG for the purposes of 
producing a single green book seems to be contrary to the CCSDS 
mission of producing implementable recommendations.  Its seems that 
this information can be captured as a yellow book if needed be as 
part SLS Area normal business to help prioritize needs for updates, 
for example as cited in the proposed charter, to proximity 1.    It 
strikes this AD that the SIG is doing good SIG work and should remain 
as a SIG to help inform the program of work for the existing WGs in 
the SLS area, and that a WG to develop a single green book for this 
information is not truly warranted.

Total Respondents:  5

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

      SOIS
      SIS

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

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2013-07-002 Approval for the Creation 
of the SIS CFDP Revisions Working Group
Results of CESG poll beginning 1 July 2013 and ending 26 July 2013:

                  Abstain:  0 (0%)
  Approve Unconditionally:  5 (83.33%) (Shames, Peccia, Barkley, Moury, Scott)
  Approve with Conditions:  1 (16.67%) (Calzolari)
  Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

      Gian Paolo Calzolari (Approve with Conditions):  Please provide 
the draft CWE Project for the Pink Book/Sheets.

Total Respondents:  6

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: 730x1g01_CESG_Approval-SEA.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 2580005 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg-all/attachments/20130729/89c7119d/730x1g01_CESG_Approval-SEA-0001.pdf