[Cesg-all] Status of CESG Polls that ended with conditional approval
Thomas Gannett
tomg at aiaa.org
Mon Jul 13 18:36:54 UTC 2015
Dear CESG members:
Concerning the following polls that ended with conditional approval:
- CESG-P-2015-03-007 Approval to release CCSDS
876.0-R-1, Spacecraft Onboard Interface
ServicesXML Specification for Electronic Data
Sheets for Onboard Devices (Red Book, Issue 1) for CCSDS Agency review;
- CESG-P-2015-03-008 Approval to release CCSDS
876.1-R-1, Spacecraft Onboard Interface
ServicesSpecification for Dictionary of Terms
for Electronic Data Sheets for Onboard Components
(Red Book, Issue 1) for CCSDS Agency review;
- CESG-P-2015-04-002 Approval to publish CCSDS
551.1-O-1, Correlated Data Generation (Orange Book, Issue 1);
ADs/DADs who voted for conditional approval have
either (1) responded to indicate proposed
dispositions are accepted or accepted with
modification (in which case dispositions with
modifications have been applied to the current
document draft) or (2) have not responded within
the 30-day time period allotted for response to
proposed dispositions (lack of response being
interpreted as indication of acceptance).
The Secretariat will now therefore issue CMC
polls for authorization to release the respective documents.
>From: "Scott, Keith L." <kscott at mitre.org>
>To: "r.krosley at andropogon.org" <r.krosley at andropogon.org>, "tomg at aiaa.org"
> <tomg at aiaa.org>
>CC: "jonathan.j.wilmot at nasa.gov" <jonathan.j.wilmot at nasa.gov>,
> "jean-francois.dufour at esa.int"
> <jean-francois.dufour at esa.int>, CCSDS Exec
> <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
>Subject: Re: Results of CESG Poll 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 r...
>Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 15:57:57 +0000
>
>The SIS Area is ok with the proposed resolutions to our RIDs.
>
>keith
>
>From: Ramon Krosley
>Reply-To: "<mailto:r.krosley at andropogon.org>r.krosley at andropogon.org"
>Date: Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 11:11 PM
>To: Tom Gannett
>Cc: Jonathan Wilmot, Richard Barton,
>"<mailto:jean-francois.dufour at esa.int>jean-francois.dufour at esa.int",
>Peter Shames, "Scott, Keith L."
>Subject: Fw: Re: Results of CESG Poll
>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 r...
>
>Tom, here is the email sent in May. It explains
>the attachment, which contains the documents and
>replies to comments. Thanks for your help!
>Ramon
>
>---- Original Message ----
>From: "Ramon Krosley"
><<mailto:r.krosley at andropogon.org>r.krosley at andropogon.org>
>To: <mailto:kscott at mitre.org>kscott at mitre.org,
><mailto:tomaso.decola at dlr.de>tomaso.decola at dlr.de,
><mailto:peter.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>peter.shames at jpl.nasa.gov
>Cc: <mailto:richard.melvin at scisys.co.uk>richard.melvin at scisys.co.uk
>Sent: May 18, 2015 08:29:26 MDT
>Subject: Re: Results of CESG Poll
>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
>
>
>Richard Melvin and I have been coordinating the
>improvements to the EDS and DoT red books. The
>attachment contains the revised documents and
>replies to your comments. There are two
>directories in the attachment, one for EDS and
>one for DoT. Please let us know whether these changes are satisfactory.
>
>(The attachment was renamed in case your mail
>systems filter .zip files. To use the
>attachment, rename its file type from .zp to
>.zip; it's a standard windows compressed
>directory. Let me know if I should retransmit in some other form.)
>
>Ramon Krosley
>
>On April 16, 2015 13:25 MDT, "Ramon Krosley"
><<mailto:r.krosley at andropogon.org>r.krosley at andropogon.org> wrote:
>
>
>Many thanks for these comments! I'll work
>through them, and communicate further.
>
>On the issue of relationship with XTCE and
>Spacecraft Monitoring and Control, there are a
>couple of developing activities.
> * One activity is the green book that is
> being written now in the SOIS APP working
> group. It contains an "onion diagram" which
> shows where XTCE could be used and where SOIS
> EDS's could be used. This diagram could be a
> topic for discussion between SM&C and
> SOIS-APP. I'll leave it to Jonathan to
> organize that discussion, if that's appropriate.
> * The other development comes from the fact
> that Kevin Rice is in the SOIS APP working
> group, and he is one of the authors of
> XTCE. Kevin and I have been discussing how the
> DoT could be used in XTCE, which could provide
> continuity of terminology across vehicle and mission control.
>Ramon
>
>
>On April 16, 2015 11:48 MDT, "Thomas Gannett"
><<mailto:tomg at aiaa.org>tomg at aiaa.org> wrote:
>
>
>Dear Jonathan et al.:
>
>The CESG poll to approve release of the SOIS DoT
>Red Book concluded with conditions. The
>conditions are stated below; attachments
>referenced in the conditions are attached to
>this message (876x1r0_CESG_Approval-SEA.pdf and 876.1-R-1.zipx).
>
>Also attached is the Word file
>(876x1r0_CESG_Approval.doc) used to create the
>PDF file used in the poll. Please use it to make
>changes in response to conditions.
>
>Resolution of the conditions should be
>negotiated directly with the authors of the
>conditions (CCed) and reported back to the CESG.
>
>Best regards,
>Tom Gannett
[With respect to the SOIS-document dispositions
referenced above, an additional response of
concurrence from the SEA AD is thought to have
been provided but was not received by the
Secretariat and therefore is not included here.]
>From: Hiroshi Takeuchi <takeuchi at isas.jaxa.jp>
>To: "Shames, Peter M (312B)" <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>,
> "Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int"
> <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>, Thomas Gannett
> <tomg at aiaa.org>, "Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de" <Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de>
>Subject: Re: [Secretariat] [Cesg-all] Results of CESG Polls closing 4 May 2015
>Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 02:19:49 +0900
>X-Mailer: HidemaruMail 5.75 (WinNT,601)
>X-DNSRBL:
>X-MAIL: dam22.s.tksc.jaxa.jp t6BHJjuA016990
>X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthSource: AIAASWMLEXCH010.hq.ad.aiaa.org
>X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthAs: Anonymous
>
>Tom, All,
>
>I'm so sorry for my late response. I was pointed out from Peter that
>I had not yet responded to this.
>I forgot to response to you because I totally agree with the proposal
>from my Area Director and Gippo. I have nothing else to add.
>Again, I'm so sorry for the delay in replying to you.
>
>Regards,
>Hiroshi
>
>
>2015/06/16 00:23:27, "Shames, Peter M (312B)" wrote:
> >From: "Shames, Peter M (312B)" <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
> >To: "Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int" <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>,
> > "Thomas Gannett" <tomg at aiaa.org>,
> > "takeuchi at isas.jaxa.jp" <takeuchi at isas.jaxa.jp>,
> > "Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de" <Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de>
> >Subject: Re: [Secretariat] [Cesg-all] Results of CESG Polls closing 4
> > May 2015
> >
> >Tom, et al,
> >
> >I agree with Gippo and also with his proposed fix to uniformly adopt the
> >correct term "Transfer Frame Data Field". It will also be necessary to
> >ensure that other places in the text, such as 2.3.2.2.a) ..
> >
> >
> >> 2.3.2.2 With the training sample bits
> uniformly inserted in the Transfer
> >> Frame body, regard
> >> must be paid to the following:
> >> a) The test data bits need to be distributed a priori among other bits of
> >> the Transfer Frame (see 3.1 b))
> >> according to the established procedure (rules), with alternation being
> >> optional (see section 6 in reference [1]);
> >
> >
> >Are fixed to read like this:
> >
> >
> >> 2.3.2.2 With the training sample bits
> uniformly inserted in the Transfer
> >> Frame Data Field, regard
> >> must be paid to the following:
> >> a) The test data bits need to be distributed a priori among other bits of
> >> the Transfer Frame Data Field (see 3.1 b))
> >> according to the established procedure (rules), with alternation being
> >> optional (see section 6 in reference [1]);
> >
> >
> >There are several places in the text where reference is made just to
> >"Transfer Frame" where the reference is
> properly to Transfer Frame Data Field.
> >
> >
> >In addition to removing the indicated sub-sections of Sec 2.3.2, Figure 2-4
> >shall also be removed. It is relevant only to the excised sections.
> >
> >Aside from that all of the conditions that SEA
> has upon this document are met.
> >
> >Best regards, Peter
> >
> >
> >On 6/13/15, 11:00 AM, "[a:mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int]Gian.Paolo.
> >Calzolari at esa.int" <[a:mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int]Gian.Paolo.
> >Calzolari at esa.int> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Dear All,
> >> The change is fine with one small remark/suggestion.
> >> I would recommend replacing "Transfer Frame
> body" with "Transfer Frame Data
> >> Field".
> >> I guess that is this what is meant by "Transfer Frame body" otherwise it
> >> would be another alteration of the frame structure.
> >> I saw that the word body is present 4 times: 3 times for and in one case
> >> for
> >> "transfer data block body" but I think that
> also here it can be replaced by
> >> "Transfer Frame Data Field".
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>
> >> Gian Paolo
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: Thomas Gannett <[a:mailto:tomg at aiaa.org]tomg at aiaa.org>
> >> To: <[a:mailto:takeuchi at isas.jaxa.jp]takeuchi at isas.jaxa.jp>, <[a:
> >> mailto:Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de]Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de>,
> >> <[a:mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int]Gian.Paolo.
> >> Calzolari at esa.int>, "'Shames, Peter M (312G)'"
> >>
> <[a:mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov]peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.
> >> gov>,
> >> Date: 12/06/2015 23:05
> >> Subject: FW: Fwd: [Secretariat]
> [Cesg-all] Results of CESG Polls closing
> >> 4
> >> May 2015
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Dear ADs with Poll Conditions:
> >>
> >> Attached are three files, the two files originally attached to the
> >> forwarded
> >> message below (with some minor translation),
> >> - CCSDS_551_Section_2.3.2__15_05_07.doc, and
> >> - CCSDS_Letter_to_Nestor_on_Orange_Book_15_05_07_rus.doc,
> >> along with a markup of the CESG Approval Copy incorporating the changes
> >> proposed by Valery Vorontsov.
> >>
> >> At your earliest convenience, please respond to this message with an
> >> indication of whether
> >> - the changes (along with the clarifications contained in the "Letter to
> >> Nestor") satisfy your poll conditions, or
> >> - additional changes (and/or additional
> clarification) are needed in order
> >> to satisfy your poll conditions.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Tom Gannett
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: $B'#'`'b'`'_'h'`'S(B
> $B'#'Q']'V'b'Z'[(B [[a:mailto:a762642 at yandex.ru]mailto:
> >> a762642 at yandex.ru]
> >> Sent: Friday, May 08, 2015 6:40 AM
> >> To: Thomas Gannett
> >> Cc: Nestor Peccia; [a:mailto:peter.shames at jpl.nasa.gov]peter.shames at jpl.
> >> nasa.gov; [a:mailto:takeuchi at isas.jaxa.jp]takeuchi at isas.jaxa.jp;
> >[a:mailto:Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de]> Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de; [a:mailto:Gian.Paolo.
> >Calzolari at esa.int] Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int; Marina Gourtovaia
> >> Subject: Re: Fwd: [Secretariat] [Cesg-all] Results of CESG Polls closing 4
> >> May 2015
> >>
> >> Dear Tom!
> >>
> >> Thank you very much for your kind willingness to advance the Orange Book
> >> draft <Correlated Data Generation>.
> >> I have the same approach, that is: the conditions set forth by the CESG
> >> opponents must be met. Specifically, the
> CESG polling materials contain the
> >> proposal of what shall be done. I supported this proposal. I wrote that in
> >> my message to Nestor (copy - to Marina). The file containing this message
> >> is
> >> attached herein. I also attach a file with the proposed correction for a
> >> new
> >> version of the Orange Book (a new version of section 2.3.2), copies are
> >> also
> >> forwarded to Nestor and Marina.
> >> I shall appreciate any information you give
> me about the Orange Book status
> >> (planned actions to advance it? Expected terms?). It will be very helpful
> >> for planning my efforts and time.
> >>
> >> Thank you once again.
> >>
> >> All the best,
> >> Valery Vorontsov
> >>
> >>
> >
> >> > Dear Valery:
> >
> >>
> >
> >> > We have almost achieved CESG approval, but a couple of conditions
> >> > need to be satisfied before I can submit the document to the CCSDS
> >> > Management Council for authorization to publish. Aside form the
> >> > typographical correction, which I will take care of, the main
> >> > conditions concern the proposed option to
> modify the CCSDS Transfer Frame.
> >
> >>
> >
> >> > I think the most efficient way to proceed is for you to come to
> >> > agreement with the authors of the conditions and then to give me
> >> > instructions on how to make the agreed changes in the document.
> >
> >>
> >
> >> > Best regards,
> >> > Tom
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > > CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2015-04-002 Approval to publish CCSDS
> >> > > 551.1-O-1, Correlated Data Generation (Orange Book, Issue 1)
> >> > > Results of CESG poll beginning 20 April 2015 and ending 4 May 2015:
> >> > >
> >> > > Abstain: 1 (12.5%) (Suess)
> >> > > Approve Unconditionally: 3 (37.5%) (Merri, Behal, Barton)
> >> > > Approve with Conditions: 4 (50%)
> (Shames, Takeuchi, Cola, Calzolari)
> >> > > Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)
> >> > >
> >> > > CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:
> >> > >
> >> > > Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions): I support the conditions
> >> > > raised by the SEA DAD and other ADs. The inclusion of modifications
> >> > > to the CCSDS space data link frame are really unacceptable. I
> >> > > believe that the document should be modified to only include the
> >> > > option that uses existing CCSDS data link features such as the frame
> >> > > secondary header.
> >> > >
> >> > > Hiroshi Takeuchi (Approve with Conditions): 1. I think there is an
> >> > > issue in Section 2.3.2.b:
> >> > >
> >> > > > b). The CCSDS Transfer Frame could be modified to include a
> >> > > proprietary trailer
> >> > > > that would include the additional test data field (figure 2-4).
> >> > >
> >> > > The concern is that by publishing even an Orange Book that just says
> >> > > "modify the CCSDS Transfer Frame" we are in some sense diminishing
> >> > > the importance of the CCSDS Transfer Frames and the formal process
> >> > > we have for making any changes to them.
> >> > > I therefore request that the WG to
> remove the Section 2.3.2.b and 2.3.2.
> >> > > 2.
> >> > >
> >> > > 2. There is a minor error in the Section 4.1.2.3:
> >> > > For the purpose of of this discussion
> >> > > ->
> >> > > For the purpose of this discussion
> >> > >
> >> > > Tomaso de Cola (Approve with Conditions): 1) Implementation of the
> >> > > specified proposal requires important modifications to the present
> >> > > definition of the TM transfer frame (see section 2.3.2), whereby
> >> > > interoperability issue with current CCSDS TM SDLP protocol
> >> > > specification can arise.
> >> > >
> >> > > 2) Section 2.3.1 states that the aforementioned blocks maybe TM
> >> > > transfer frames. Does it mean that the proposed solution could be
> >> > > applied to other PDUs defined in the
> corresponding CCSDS protocol stack
> >> >
> >> layers?
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > Gian Paolo Calzolari (Approve with Conditions): I share the doubts
> >> > > about the TM Transfer Frame expressed by colleagues.
> >> > > At the very least a clear remark stating e.g. some of the proposed
> >> > > solutions are non standard and they will have to be evaluated by
> >> > > pertinent WG's in case of an escalation effort for this orange book
> >> > > towards the status of Recommended Standard.
> >> > > For the optional Test Data Field it may be more realistic proposing
> >> > > it at the end of the Transfer Frame Data Field as project specific
> >> >
> >> solution.
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Total Respondents: 8
> >> > > 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
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >> > Thomas Gannett
> >> > +1 443 472 0805
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> $B'3(B $B'e'S'Q'X'V'_'Z'V'^(B,
> >> $B'#'`'b'`'_'h'`'S(B [a:mailto:a762642 at yandex.ru]
> >> mailto:a762642 at yandex.ru
> >> [attachment "CCSDS_551_Section_2.3.2__15_05_07.doc" deleted by Gian Paolo
> >> Calzolari/esoc/ESA] [attachment
> >> "CCSDS_Letter_to_Nestor_on_Orange_Book_15_05_07_rus.doc" deleted by Gian
> >> Paolo Calzolari/esoc/ESA] [attachment "551x1o02_Post_CESG_Poll_markup.doc"
> >> 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.
> >>
> >>
> >
Thomas Gannett
+1 443 472 0805
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg-all/attachments/20150713/485df39e/attachment.html>
More information about the CESG-All
mailing list