[Cesg-all] RE: Why is SLS-SLP the Review Authority for the SCPS-TP Extended Capability Binding Space Identifiers?

[Shames, Peter M (312B)]

Hi Keith,

I suspect that this is just an error and that we can easily fix it now.  In the current SANA YB (CCSDS 313x0y1) it says that one of the four possible registration rules is this:


b) Change requires an engineering review by a designated expert (or group). The expert for


that registry is assigned by the CESG based on the WG recommendation.



Since the WG that created this registry is not active that "expert" would naturally default to the Area that the WG was in.  I think we can safely declare the SIS AD as the "expert" in this case and that doing so breaks no rules nor does it set a precedent that we (the CESG) did not already agree with, in principle, during discussion on Monday, 30 March.

For those just tuning into this discussion, this type of registry rule is the only one that requires an expert review, the other three options use different rules, thus do not require a  "review authority".  This is already in the SANA YB, but some further clean-ups and extensions were proposed and will be reviewed by the CESG in the coming months.

Regards, Peter



From: <Scott>, Keith Scott <kscott at mitre.org<mailto:kscott at mitre.org>>
Date: Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 8:47 AM
To: Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>>, CCSDS Secretariat <secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org>>, CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG All <cesg-all at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg-all at mailman.ccsds.org>>, Greg Kazz <Greg.J.Kazz at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:Greg.J.Kazz at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Subject: RE: [Cesg-all] RE: Why is SLS-SLP the Review Authority for the SCPS-TP Extended Capability Binding Space Identifiers?

I don’t object.  If you think it would make more sense, we could wait until after the yellow book updates so that the SIS Area can be a ‘valid’ review authority.

                        --keith

From: Shames, Peter M (312B) [mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 11:46 AM
To: Scott, Keith L.; Secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:Secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org>; CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG All (cesg-all at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg-all at mailman.ccsds.org>); Kazz, Greg J (312B)
Subject: Re: [Cesg-all] RE: Why is SLS-SLP the Review Authority for the SCPS-TP Extended Capability Binding Space Identifiers?

Keith,

I agree that the SIS area should be the Review Authority for all of these SCPS registries.  I'll ask the SANA and the SSG to review and recommend the change unless anyone has an objection.

Are there any objections or issues with this?

Thanks, Peter


From: <Scott>, Keith Scott <kscott at mitre.org<mailto:kscott at mitre.org>>
Date: Monday, March 30, 2015 at 4:20 PM
To: CCSDS Secretariat <secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org>>, CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG All <cesg-all at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg-all at mailman.ccsds.org>>, Greg Kazz <Greg.J.Kazz at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:Greg.J.Kazz at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Subject: [Cesg-all] RE: Why is SLS-SLP the Review Authority for the SCPS-TP Extended Capability Binding Space Identifiers?

Seems to be the same for all the SCPS registries.  Maybe because SLS-SLP is an extant WG?

                        --keith

From: Scott, Keith L.
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 4:20 PM
To: Secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:Secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org>; CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG All (cesg-all at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg-all at mailman.ccsds.org>); greg.j.kazz at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:greg.j.kazz at jpl.nasa.gov>
Subject: Why is SLS-SLP the Review Authority for the SCPS-TP Extended Capability Binding Space Identifiers?

Shouldn’t the review authority for http://sanaregistry.org/r/scps_tp_extended_capability_id/scps_tp_extended_capability_id.html

Be the SIS area, not SLS-SLP?

                        --keith

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg-all/attachments/20150401/612f4bad/attachment.html>