[Cesg-all] Results of CESG polls closing 27 March 2013
CCSDS Secretariat
tomg at aiaa.org
Thu Mar 28 11:54:34 EST 2013
CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2013-03-001
Approval to reconfirm MOIMS/Data Archive Ingest
Working Group (DAI WG) Documents
Results of CESG poll beginning 11 March 2013 and ending 27 March 2013:
Abstain: 2 (40%) (Calzolari, Scott)
Approve Unconditionally: 1 (20%) (Peccia)
Approve with Conditions: 2 (40%) (Shames, Giulio)
Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:
Peter Shames (Approve with
Conditions): Resources are scant, so this
request is understandable. However, it comes
across as a request that has perhaps had too
little thought put into it. A number of these
documents are very far down on the CCSDS
publications usage report, in the company, mostly
of Silver Books and test reports. Perhaps those
least used and referenced should be retired
instead of being reconfirmed for another five years?
How about doing (or asking the Secretariat to do)
a quick survey to see where these have fallen on
the usage report for the last year? Any of them
that consistently rank among the silver books
should probably be demoted to that status as well.
Margherita di Giulio (Approve with
Conditions): There is a note that implementing
agencies have successfully implemented the listed
standards. I am aware that SFDUs and PVL have
real world usage, but I can not say the same
about DEDSL or EAST. As type of RID is it
possible to provide data that indicate the
implementing agencies for all these standards?
Perhaps not the complete list needs re-confirmation?
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-2013-03-002
Approval of Technical Corrigendum 1 to CCSDS 231.0-B-2, Issued September 2010
Results of CESG poll beginning 13 March 2013 and ending 27 March 2013:
Abstain: 1 (16.67%) (Scott)
Approve Unconditionally: 5 (83.33%) (Shames,
Peccia, Barkley, Calzolari, Moury)
Approve with Conditions: 0 (0%)
Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)
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-2013-03-003
Approval to publish CCSDS 415.0-G-1, Data
Transmission and PN Ranging for 2 GHz CDMA Link
via Data Relay Satellite (Green Book, Issue 1)
Results of CESG poll beginning 13 March 2013 and ending 27 March 2013:
Abstain: 1 (16.67%) (Scott)
Approve Unconditionally: 5 (83.33%) (Shames,
Peccia, Barkley, Calzolari, Moury)
Approve with Conditions: 0 (0%)
Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)
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-2013-03-004
Approval to publish CCSDS 901.0-G-1, Space
Communications Cross Support—Architecture
Description Document (Green Book, Issue 1)
Results of CESG poll beginning 13 March 2013 and ending 27 March 2013:
Abstain: 0 (0%)
Approve Unconditionally: 2 (66.67%) (Shames, Peccia)
Approve with Conditions: 1 (33.33%) (Barkley)
Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:
Erik Barkley (Approve with
Conditions): The document needs a few corrections:
Figure 1-1, Graphical Conventions, and the
accompanying NOTES. NOTE 3 states “Organizations
are depicted with dashed three-dimensional boxes.
Organizational domains are depicted with rounded,
dashed, two-dimensional boxes (not shown).
1. There should be an icon in the figure itself
for the organizational domain (rounded, dashed,
two-dimensional box), since it is actually used in the document.
2. The Organizational Element icon (dashed
three-dimensional box) is not used anywhere in
the document. If no use for it can be found, it
should be removed from the SCCS ADD. However,
there may be a possible use – see the comments below on figure 2-7.
3. If there is some reason to retain the
Organizational Element icon (e.g., because it
might be useful in derived models) then it should
be defined and differentiated from Organizational
Domain. Also, the name in the NOTE
(“Organization” ) should be changed to match that
of the icon (Organizational Element).
Figure 2.1, Roles of the SCCS Architecture
Documents, uses a rounded, dashed,
two-dimensional box. Is this really an
organization domain? I suppose it may be from the
point of view of the architecture itself, but is
that the intended meaning? If so its very
abstract and does not really parse well --
shoujld Should the dashed line be removed? Or
perhaps a note needs to be added indicating that
this is not really an organziational domain?
Figure 2-7 employs organizational domain icons
(rounded, dashed, two-dimensional boxes) that are
labeled “Service Provider (Provision Management)”
and “Service User (Utilization Management).” I
think that the respective organizational domains
are Provider Cross Support System (CSSS) and User
CSSS, and Provision Management and Utilization
Management are functions of those. Same concerns on figure 2-8 and 2-10.
Also, attached, uploaded are more detailed
comments from the pre-release version of the
document but apply to this official poll version.
Total Respondents: 3
No response was received from the following Area(s):
SOIS
SLS
SIS
SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Failed to
Achieve Quorum with Conditions
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate
new CESG poll after conditions have been addressed
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2013-03-005
Approval to publish CCSDS 850.0-G-2, Spacecraft
Onboard Interface Services (Green Book, Issue 2)
Results of CESG poll beginning 13 March 2013 and ending 27 March 2013:
Abstain: 0 (0%)
Approve Unconditionally: 1 (33.33%) (Peccia)
Approve with Conditions: 2 (66.67%) (Shames, Calzolari)
Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:
Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions): It
is clear that this document has had a number of
very useful revisions made that bring it into
line with the current thinking and work within
SOIS. At the same time this current version of
the document is not yet coherent enough to
publish. There are a number of areas where
concepts and definitions are introduced out of
order, not well described, and/or not well
explained. Relationships among a number of
functions are not well described. A number of
potentially useful figures are missing (or should be provided).
The figures that are provided also do not use a
single, clear approach in a consistent way. You
really should consider adoption of RASDS, or if
you must, define your own representations and use
them in a consistent fashion. CSS SM and SLE have done this to good effect.
The attached mark up is not yet complete (I only
got to pg 2-14), but it should provide enough
guidance as to where these issues lie. I will
complete this review if I can and I will forward
it, but I think this may be enough to guide the
evaluation of the needed revisions.
Nestor Peccia (Approve Unconditionally): I share the SEA / SLS comments
Gian Paolo Calzolari (Approve with
Conditions): I find a need to better clarify the
usage of term like data link, Data Link Layer and CCSDS Data Link Layer.
This should be in general a little but important
editing to better connect this book to the SLS Area books/protocols/services.
Total Respondents: 3
No response was received from the following Area(s):
CSS
SOIS
SIS
SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Failed to
Achieve Quorum with Conditions
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate
new CESG poll after conditions have been addressed
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2013-03-006
Approval to publish CCSDS 120.0-G-3, Lossless
Data Compression (Green Book, Issue 3)
Results of CESG poll beginning 13 March 2013 and ending 27 March 2013:
Abstain: 1 (16.67%) (Scott)
Approve Unconditionally: 5 (83.33%) (Shames,
Peccia, Barkley, Calzolari, Moury)
Approve with Conditions: 0 (0%)
Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)
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
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
More information about the CESG-all
mailing list