[Cesg-all] Re: Results of CESG Poll closing 14 October 2014

Wed Oct 22 17:13:02 UTC 2014

Dear CESG Members,

SLS and SEA conditions for approval to release 
CCSDS 727.0-P-4.1, CCSDS File Delivery Protocol 
(CFDP) (Pink Book, Issue 4.1) have been satisfied 
through negotiation between the ADs and WG chair 
(related correspondence is attached below). In 
response to the CSS conditions, a Security, SANA, 
and Patent Considerations annex has been added. 
All conditions have therefore been addressed, and 
the Secretariat will now proceed with CMC polling.

At 08:14 AM 10/15/2014, CCSDS Secretariat wrote:
>CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2014-09-001 
>Approval to release CCSDS 727.0-P-4.1, CCSDS 
>File Delivery Protocol (CFDP) (Pink Book, Issue 4.1) for CCSDS Agency review
>Results of CESG poll beginning 30 September 2014 and ending 14 October 2014:
>
>                  Abstain:  0 (0%)
>  Approve Unconditionally:  2 (40%) (Peccia, Taylor)
>  Approve with Conditions:  3 (60%) (Shames, Barkley, Calzolari)
>  Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)
>
>CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:
>
>Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions): I have 
>noted what appear to be two minor issues in the 
>attached doc. One is purely editorial. The 
>second appears to be an inconsistency in the way 
>that segment control is signaled in different parts of the spec.
>
>In addition to the security and SANA sections 
>that Erik noted these should be resolved before 
>sending the document out for agency review.
>
>Erik Barkley (Approve with Conditions): 1) SANA 
>Registry considerations/policy is not in the document. Please add.
>2) Security considerations/assessment is not in the document. Please add.
>
>Gian Paolo Calzolari (Approve with Conditions): See attached e-mail.
>
>
>Total Respondents: 5
>No response was received from the following Area(s):
>
>SIS
>
>SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Approved with Conditions
>PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            Generate 
>CMC poll after conditions have been addressed

At 12:51 PM 10/22/2014, Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int wrote:
>Scott,
>         Understood that point 7 is solved by other means.
>I was just asking if it was correct and you confirm it is.
>
>I think that captioning the two diagrams is sufficient.
>
>Best regards
>
>Gian Paolo
>
>
>
>From:        "Burleigh, Scott C (312B)" <scott.c.burleigh at jpl.nasa.gov>
>To:        "Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int" 
><Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>, "Thomas Gannett" 
><thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>,
>Cc:        "Scott, Keith L." <kscott at mitre.org>
>Date:        22/10/2014 18:46
>Subject:        RE: Fwd: RE: [Cesg-all] Results 
>of CESG Poll closing 14 October  2014  (CFDP Pink Book)
>
>
>
>
>Hi, Gianpaolo.  In my remarks on your original 
>point 7 I noted that the real issue was that the 
>Resume procedures should not have been included 
>in the Duplex case in the first place.  So there 
>should have been no difference between the 
>simplex and duplex cases; that difference has 
>now been removed, so theres no need for a note about the difference.
>
>The two diagrams are really for Transaction 
>closure not requested and Transaction closure 
>requested.  Tom, could you add those 
>captions?  Gianpaolo, would that suffice?  Since 
>the details of transaction closure processing are provided elsewhere?
>
>Scott
>
>From: Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int 
>[<mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int]
>Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 1:04 AM
>To: Thomas Gannett
>Cc: Scott, Keith L.; Burleigh, Scott C (312B)
>Subject: Re: Fwd: RE: [Cesg-all] Results of CESG 
>Poll closing 14 October 2014 (CFDP Pink Book)
>
>Tom,
>        as written separately I see two 
> remaining items for which I have doubts
>--------------------------------------------------
>7) 7.3.2 PROCEDURES FOR CLASS 1ADESTINATION - See QUESTION
>My original request was <Include a NOTE to 
>remark that the only difference wrt simplex are the Resume Procedures.>.
>Now I see a single table with no remark about 
>differences for simplex vs. duplex.  Is this correct?
>8) 7.3.3 EVENT DIAGRAM FOR CLASS 1A  - See QUESTION
>If I understand correctly the change bars etc., 
>now there are two diagrams that differ on the bottom.
>I guess that they refer to simplex vs. duplex.  Is this correct?
>The absence of text can mislead the reader. I do 
>recommend adding some text explaining why there 
>are two diagrams and drawing the reader's attention on the differences.
>-------------------------------------------------
>
>I guess we can converge rapidly.
>
>Regards
>
>Gian Paolo
>
>
>
>From:        Thomas Gannett 
><<mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>
>To:        <mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int,
>Cc:        "Burleigh, Scott C (312B)" 
><<mailto:scott.c.burleigh at jpl.nasa.gov>scott.c.burleigh at jpl.nasa.gov>, 
>"Scott, Keith L." <<mailto:kscott at mitre.org>kscott at mitre.org>
>Date:        21/10/2014 23:03
>Subject:        Fwd: RE: [Cesg-all] Results of 
>CESG Poll closing 14 October  2014
>
>
>
>
>
>Gian Paolo:
>
>Attached is an updated version of the draft CFDP 
>Pink Book reflecting Scott Burleigh's responses 
>to the poll conditions. His notes concerning his 
>responses to your conditions are below. I have 
>addressed condition 4ii by changing the Green 
>Book reference to a future update (my 
>understanding is the Green Book is indeed being 
>updated to be consistent with the Blue Book update).
>
>If the current version is acceptable, let me 
>know so I can proceed to the CMC poll.
>
>Best regards,
>Tom
>
>From: "Burleigh, Scott C (312B)" 
><<mailto:scott.c.burleigh at jpl.nasa.gov>scott.c.burleigh at jpl.nasa.gov>
>To: Thomas Gannett 
><<mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>
>CC: "<mailto:kscott at mitre.org>kscott at mitre.org" 
><<mailto:kscott at mitre.org>kscott at mitre.org>
>Subject: RE: [Cesg-all] Results of CESG Poll closing 14 October 2014
>Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2014 00:15:46 +0000
>
>Okay, here is the revised book, which I think 
>addresses all of the CESG approval 
>conditions.  I'm attaching a PowerPoint slide 
>containing two new event diagrams for section 
>7.2, one for Class 1 over simplex paths and a 
>second one for Class 1 over duplex paths.  The 
>text changes in the book respond to Peter's and 
>Erik's conditions and, with a couple of minor 
>adjustments, to Gianpaolo's conditions:
>    * Points 2 and 3 are already correct in the copy I'm working from.
>    * I cannot make head nor tail out of 4.ii; I 
> don't know what note to amend, and I don't know 
> why we're talking about [C4] -- reference to a 
> Green Book, as near as I can tell -- in this poll anyway.
>    * Point 5: the caption for Table 7-1 is 
> correct as written, since there is no Class 1A.
>    * Point 6: the tables have been updated to 
> reflect the intent of Gianpaolo's condition, but in a slightly different way.
>    * Point 7: no, the Resume Procedures at the 
> destination node in Class 1 shouldn't have been included in the first place.
>    * Point 8: please insert the new event diagrams.
>    * Point 9: Tom, sorry, I'm afraid I have to leave this one to you.
>
>Scott
>
>
>[attachment "727x0p40_post_CESG_Approval.pdf" 
>deleted by Gian Paolo Calzolari/esoc/ESA]
>This message and any attachments are intended 
>for the use of the addressee or addressees only.
>The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination 
>or copying (either in whole or in part) of its
>content is not permitted.
>If you received this message in error, please 
>notify the sender and delete it from your system.
>Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the sender.
>
>Please consider the environment before printing this email.
>
>This message and any attachments are intended 
>for the use of the addressee or addressees only.
>The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination 
>or copying (either in whole or in part) of its
>content is not permitted.
>If you received this message in error, please 
>notify the sender and delete it from your system.
>Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the sender.
>
>Please consider the environment before printing this email.
At 06:18 PM 10/17/2014, Shames, Peter M (312B) wrote:
>Ok.  I get the logic.
>
>By this note I'll remove the condition.
>
>Peter
>
>
>From: <Burleigh>, Scott Burleigh 
><<mailto:Scott.C.Burleigh at jpl.nasa.gov>Scott.C.Burleigh at jpl.nasa.gov>
>Date: Friday, October 17, 2014 1:51 PM
>To: Peter Shames 
><<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
>Cc: Tom Gannett 
><<mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>, 
>Keith Scott <<mailto:kscott at mitre.org>kscott at mitre.org>
>Subject: CFDP Pink Book question
>
>Hi, Peter.  Of your two conditions on approving 
>release of the CFDP Pink Book, one is a good 
>editorial catch that I am addressing in a 
>revised document and the other is this question:
>
>Since 5.1.3, Table 5-1 adds a segment flag I am 
>puzzled as to why it has been removed here.  What is the reason for this?
>
>The real question is what purpose was really 
>served by carrying that flag in the Metadata in 
>the first place. I guess it could have been used 
>as a hint to the implementation as to whether or 
>not to issue the optional 
>File-Segment-Recv.indication primitives upon 
>receipt of file data segments, but the argument 
>on this point was made prior to the last ice age.
>
>The reason to remove it now is that it is no 
>longer needed in the Metadata PDU, since its 
>carried in every PDU header.  As of the issuance 
>of the Approval edition of the spec, it serves 
>the very necessary purpose of distinguishing 
>between segments of a non-record-structured file 
>and segments that are the non-final 
>continuations of long records beginning with 
>earlier segments, so that the application can 
>reconstruct records correctly (if it so wishes).
>
>As of the email I sent out this morning, though, 
>I am beginning to be a fan of deleting it 
>altogether.  The mechanism I was sketching this 
>morning would actually enable transmission of a 
>file that was a mix of unstructured data and 
>record-structured data, which could conceivably be handy.
>
>Anyway, please let me know if you still have a question here.
>
>Thanks,
>Scott

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg-all/attachments/20141022/4a695419/attachment.html>