[Cesg-all] Results of CESG Polls closing 15 April 2015

CCSDS Secretariat tomg at aiaa.org
Thu Apr 16 16:31:08 UTC 2015 

CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2015-03-005 
Approval to publish CCSDS 901.1-M-1, Space 
Communications Cross Support—Architecture 
Requirements Document (Magenta Book, Issue 1)
Results of CESG poll beginning 29 March 2015 and ending 15 April 2015:

                  Abstain:  0 (0%)
  Approve Unconditionally:  8 (100%) (Shames, 
Takeuchi, Merri, Behal, Barkley, Suess, Barton, Scott)
  Approve with Conditions:  0 (0%)
  Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

Mario Merri (Approve Unconditionally): The 
document can be published as is since it has been 
requested by the IOAG and reflects IOAG Catalogue 
1 and 2 (i.e. no Application Level Services, 
namely SOIS and MOIMS services). However, the 
CCSDS needs an architecture document that also 
includes Application Level Services. MOIMS would 
like that this need is acknowledged by CCSDS.

Bigette Behal (Approve Unconditionally): The 
document can be published as is since it has been 
requested by the IOAG and reflects IOAG Catalogue 
1 and 2 (i.e. no Application Level Services, 
namely SOIS and MOIMS services). However, the 
CCSDS needs an architecture document that also 
includes Application Level Services. MOIMS would 
like that this need is acknowledged by CCSDS.


Total Respondents: 8
No response was received from the following Area(s):

MOIMS
SOIS
SLS

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

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2015-03-006 
Approval to release CCSDS 881.1-R-1, Spacecraft 
Onboard Interface Services—RFID Tag Encoding 
Specification (Red Book, Issue 1) for CCSDS Agency review
Results of CESG poll beginning 29 March 2015 and ending 15 April 2015:

                  Abstain:  3 (37.5%) (Merri, Behal, Calzolari)
  Approve Unconditionally:  3 (37.5%) (Suess, Barton, Scott)
  Approve with Conditions:  2 (25%) (Shames, Barkley)
  Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions): This 
document still needs some work, particularly in 
the areas relating to the use of SANA and the guidance to the SANA operator.

The data structure is also probably more awkward 
than it needs to be, but that appears to be a legacy limitation.

please see the attached mark-up.

Erik Barkley (Approve with Conditions): Condition 
1: For this type of recommendation an ICS should 
be stated to help ensure a good agency review -- 
it will be useful to know what is mandatory and 
what is optional in the ID (probably all of it 
but there is no direct statement of that)

Condition 2: it will be very helpful for agency 
reviews to know what the policy is for assigning 
database IDs in SANA -- note that claiming the 
SANA Registry as the administrator is 
insufficient as current CCSDS practice is that 
the recommendation that defines a registry must, 
necessarily, identify its management policy.

Keith Scott (Approve Unconditionally): I'm 
willing to let this go through to Agency Review, 
but the 'To Be Supplied' sections in the document 
(PICS, Patent Considerations) are questionable. I 
think the CESG should discuss whether such 
(admittedly slightly) incomplete documents should be put out for Agency Review.


Total Respondents: 8
No response was received from the following Area(s):

MOIMS
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-2015-03-007 
Approval to release CCSDS 876.0-R-1, Spacecraft 
Onboard Interface Services—XML Specification for 
Electronic Data Sheets for Onboard Devices (Red 
Book, Issue 1) for CCSDS Agency review
Results of CESG poll beginning 29 March 2015 and ending 15 April 2015:

                  Abstain:  2 (25%) (Barkley, Calzolari)
  Approve Unconditionally:  4 (50%) (Merri, Behal, Suess, Barton)
  Approve with Conditions:  2 (25%) (Shames, Scott)
  Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions): This 
document is in quite good shape as far as the XML 
schema potion is concerned, but there are a 
number of issues in the non-normative sections.

1) This document, and 876x1, both talk about EDS, 
DoT, components, and the relationship of these to 
several SOIS services. Having read the books 
back-to-back it is apparent that they were 
written by two (or more) different people and 
that there are somewhat divergent descriptions of 
how all this stuff relates. I recommend that the 
authors of this doc, and of 876x1, spend some 
time getting the facts straight and aligning their use of terms.

2) The recommendation that SOIS consider 
developing an overview architecture document that 
carefully describes how the DAS, DVS, CDAS, 
devices, subnets, EDS, etc all play together is 
true for this spec as well as the other. The 
figures that are used, in both docs, do not do 
justice to this somewhat complicated topic.

3) The set of terms in this document is 
incomplete and it is also dis-joint from those 
used in 876x1. This should be remedied and both 
docs should use identical definitions where they 
use the same terms. And there are many terms 
defined in-line, in the document, that should 
appear in the Sec 1.5.1 definitions.

4) The expected use of SANA for the XML registry, 
URN namespace, and other registry elements is 
very weakly treated in this document and in the 
companion. Further, the relationship between this 
and the DoT / EDS is weakly handled. This 
disconnect is made immediately apparent even at a 
surface level since the 876x1 calls them EDS and this one calls them SEDS.

There are many other issues and comments in-line in the attached mark-up.

Mario Merri (Approve Unconditionally): During the 
Agency Review the relationships with the CCSDS 
XTCE and CCSDS M&C Services shall be clarified 
and described in the book. To this effect more 
detailed RIDs will be raised by the SM&C WG.

Bigette Behal (Approve Unconditionally): During 
the Agency Review the relationships with the 
CCSDS XTCE and CCSDS M&C Services shall be 
clarified and described in the book. To this 
effect more detailed RIDs will be raised by the SM&C WG.

Erik Barkley (Abstain): Unfortunately I can not 
provide an adequate review at this time.

Keith Scott (Approve with Conditions): See attached.


Total Respondents: 8
No response was received from the following Area(s):

MOIMS
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-2015-03-008 
Approval to release CCSDS 876.1-R-1, Spacecraft 
Onboard Interface Services—Specification for 
Dictionary of Terms for Electronic Data Sheets 
for Onboard Components (Red Book, Issue 1) for CCSDS Agency review
Results of CESG poll beginning 29 March 2015 and ending 15 April 2015:

                  Abstain:  2 (25%) (Barkley, Calzolari)
  Approve Unconditionally:  4 (50%) (Merri, Behal, Suess, Barton)
  Approve with Conditions:  2 (25%) (Shames, Scott)
  Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions): This is a 
complex document that is dealing with what is 
essentially totally new subject matter for CCSDS, 
i.e. EDS, using totally new methodology, i.e. 
ontology. As such it is breaking new ground and 
introducing the rest of the community to a whole 
new set of terms, techniques, and methods.

Having done some of this work myself I can find 
my way through it and I understand the intent and 
the approach. But I have doubts that most other 
readers in CCSDS will find it easy going. As a 
result am requesting that there be some thought 
given to a significant re-write before this is 
unleashed upon the rest of the world.

I find the following major issues:

1) in many cases it seems that the issues or 
problems are presented before the motivation and 
discussion. This leads to a sort of "reverse 
Polish" reading style being required, probably 
not optimal. This same issue surfaces in that Sec 2 materials appear in Sec 3.

2) There is a lot of what appears to be essential 
descriptive material that belongs in Sec 2, but 
that is buried down in sub-sub-section in Sec 3.

3) The relationships among these different 
concepts, ontology, terms, EDS, EDS "core" 
schema, actual EDS in a component, how these are 
to be defined, managed, and accessed are complex. 
They deserve a really clear set of descriptions 
(in sec 2) along with a set of diagrams that will 
make the sometimes complex language descriptions more clear.

4) There are a lot of terms that are used in the 
body of the text that do not appear in the 
definitions. There are several references that 
also are in the same boat. There are also terms 
and concepts from other SOIS docs that should be 
defined as references from those docs. And 
lastly, there are some definitions for terms that 
are either not "crisp" or that do not read as 
clearly and unambiguously as they might.

5) There is a set of topics that are stated using 
requirements "shall" language that appear under 
"general" headings that might normally be thought 
of as non-normative. There are also a number of 
requirements that are collected under a single 
heading instead of being individual.

A whole set of detailed comments is inserted in the attached mark-up.

Peter

Mario Merri (Approve Unconditionally): During the 
Agency Review the relationships with the CCSDS 
XTCE and CCSDS M&C Services shall be clarified 
and described in the book. To this effect more 
detailed RIDs will be raised by the SM&C WG.

Bigette Behal (Approve Unconditionally): During 
the Agency Review the relationships with the 
CCSDS XTCE and CCSDS M&C Services shall be 
clarified and described in the book. To this 
effect more detailed RIDs will be raised by the SM&C WG.

Erik Barkley (Abstain): Unfortunately I can not 
provide an adequate review at this time.

Keith Scott (Approve with Conditions): See attached.


Total Respondents: 8
No response was received from the following Area(s):

MOIMS
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: 881x1r0_CESG_Approval-SEA.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 554194 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg-all/attachments/20150416/ece906a3/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 876.0-R-1.zipx
Type: application/zip
Size: 54292 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg-all/attachments/20150416/ece906a3/attachment.zip>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 876x0r0_CESG_Approval-SEA.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1839648 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg-all/attachments/20150416/ece906a3/attachment-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 876.1-R-1.zipx
Type: application/zip
Size: 71596 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg-all/attachments/20150416/ece906a3/attachment-0001.zip>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 876x1r0_CESG_Approval-SEA.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1010515 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg-all/attachments/20150416/ece906a3/attachment-0002.pdf>

More information about the CESG-All mailing list