[Cesg-all] Results of CESG Polls closing 24 November 2015

[CCSDS Secretariat]

CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2015-10-002 Approval to publish CCSDS 
120.2-G-1, Lossless Multispectral and Hyperspectral Image Compression 
(Green Book, Issue 1)
Results of CESG poll beginning 30 October 2015 and ending 20 November 2015:

                  Abstain:  2 (28.57%) (Merri, Behal)
  Approve Unconditionally:  5 (71.43%) (Shames, Scott, Calzolari, 
Suess, Barton)
  Approve with Conditions:  0 (0%)
  Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

Total Respondents: 7
No response was received from the following Area(s):

CSS

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

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

CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2015-10-003 Approval to publish CCSDS 
350.1-G-2, Security Threats against Space Missions (Green Book, Issue 2)
Results of CESG poll beginning 30 October 2015 and ending 20 November 2015:

                  Abstain:  0 (0%)
  Approve Unconditionally:  4 (66.67%) (Shames, Scott, Suess, Barton)
  Approve with Conditions:  2 (33.33%) (Merri, Calzolari)
  Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

Mario Merri (Approve with Conditions): Figure 3-3: The ground 
connections between the Spacecraft Control Centre owned by Agency A 
and the Instrument Control Centre owned by Agency B is indicated to 
be SLE. Please remove SLE and put something like "Ground 
Communications". Please do the same where "FTP" is indicated. Despite 
these are only examples, we should avoid to deliver an architectural 
message that is also in contradiction with the "London Agreement".

Keith Scott (Approve Unconditionally): COMMENTS:

Last sentence in 2.2
This document will concentrate on primarily providing the reader with 
information on threat.

Shouldn't this read '... on threats.'?

======

Section 2.4 page 2-3
The relationship between threat agents and mission impacts is 
illustrated figure 2-2. A list of
threats specifically applicable to CCSDS mission infrastructures is 
presented and discussed
in section 0.

Should this really read 'section 0'?

======

I think there's an "ERROR!Reference source not found" in section 4.2 
(second paragraph)

--keith

Gian Paolo Calzolari (Approve with Conditions): Statement "THIS 
DOCUMENT IS APPLICABLE TO MISSION PLANNERS FOR ALL CCSDS COMPLIANT 
SPACE MISSIONS" cannot be included in a Green Book as they support 
but not prescribe. Reword to e.g. "THIS DOCUMENT can support MISSION 
PLANNERS FOR ALL CCSDS COMPLIANT SPACE MISSIONS"


Total Respondents: 6
No response was received from the following Area(s):

CSS

SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Approved with Conditions
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            Generate CMC poll after 
conditions have been addressed

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

CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2015-10-004 Approval to publish CCSDS 
500.2-G-1, Navigation Data Messages Overview (Green Book, Issue 1)
Results of CESG poll beginning 30 October 2015 and ending 20 November 2015:

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

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

Tomaso de Cola (Approve Unconditionally): Just a minor comment:
Terminology typically appears in Section 2 of CCSDS books, whereas in 
this document we have section 3.2 (Terms and definition) and then 
Annex A (Glossary) with some repetitions. I'd suggest to move 
everything in an harmonized way to Section 2.


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

CSS

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

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