[Cesg-all] Results of CESG Polls closing 21 January 2016

Fri Jan 22 21:15:35 UTC 2016

CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2015-12-003 
Approval to publish CCSDS A02.1-Y-4 Cor. 2, 
Corrigendum 1 to CCSDS A02.1-Y-4, Issued April 2014
Results of CESG poll beginning 18 December 2015 and ending 21 January 2016:

                  Abstain:  0 (0%)
  Approve Unconditionally:  10 (100%) (Barkley, 
Merri, Behal, Shames, Scott, Cola, Calzolari, Moury, Suess, Barton)
  Approve with Conditions:  0 (0%)
  Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

Total Respondents: 10
All Areas responded to this question.

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

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

CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2015-12-004 
Approval to publish CCSDS 313.0-Y-2, Space 
Assigned Numbers Authority (SANA)Role, 
Responsibilities, Policies, and Procedures Yellow Book, Issue 2)
Results of CESG poll beginning 18 December 2015 and ending 21 January 2016:

                  Abstain:  0 (0%)
  Approve Unconditionally:  6 (75%) (Behal, Shames, Scott, Cola, Suess, Barton)
  Approve with Conditions:  2 (25%) (Barkley, Merri)
  Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

Erik Barkley (Approve with Conditions): 1) From: 
"Third Generation Project" To: "Third Generation 
Partnership Project"; Rationale: Proper defintion of acronym per 3GPP website

2) Either a) from "registration authority" to 
"review authority" or b) revise all existing SANA 
registry to revise existing meta data

3) From: "SANA manages only the protocol 
registries of the CCSDS," to some phrase that is 
consistent with registry classifications in the 
RMP. Rationale: The RMP does not formally define 
"protocol registries" but defines, "enterprise", 
"global", and "local/WG" classes of registries. 
Use of RMP classification will help to reduce ambiguity.

4) From: "Programmatic access to the SANA 
registries shall be provided via an HTTP/REST 
query interface." to some sentence indicating the 
HTTP Methods to be supported. Rationale: 
Technically, REST is not a protocol, but rather a 
style of utilization of HTTP. I suspect that a 
"full REST"/Restful web-services capability is 
not truly desired, at least not at this time. 
"Full REST type capability" allows for HTTP 
methods such PUT and POST. I suspect that 
probably methods such as GET are really only 
intended here. Suggest including a reference in 
the document to RFC 2616 and restricting access 
to those HTTP methods to be allowed for SANA.

5) From: "Expert Groups are not intended to 
require significant resources nor meeting rooms 
at bi-annual meetings" to some sort of allowance 
for at least a meeting room. Rationale: it is 
conceivable that an expert group will have to 
meet face-to-face to resolve an issue and agency 
budgets/allowance outside of the bi-annual meeting cycle are typically lacking.

6) Remove Annex A. Rationale: the list of 
candidate registries is orthogonal to the roles 
and responsibility defined herein and is properly identified in the RMP.
1

Mario Merri (Approve with Conditions): I suggest 
to add in sec 3.16 also "backup system" or 
something similar. Backup must be a mandatory functionality.

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

SLS

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

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

CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2015-12-005 
Approval to publish CCSDS 313.1-Y-1, CCSDS SANA 
Registry Management Policy (Yellow Book, Issue 1)
Results of CESG poll beginning 18 December 2015 and ending 21 January 2016:

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

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

Erik Barkley (Approve with Conditions): Summary of conditions:

1) Minor editorial RIDs
2) Lack of purge policy
3) IOAG RF Assets registry appears to be 
duplicative of Sites and Apertures registry in 
contradiction to general policy of not having duplicative registries

Detailed conditions are in the attached file.

Mario Merri (Approve with Conditions): 3.4.6.5 
Refers to a "CCSDS Common Schema" registries yet 
no further reference is made to this or an explanation of what this is.

3.4.6.5 Refers to the use of the "CCSDS 
Terminology Registry", it should be made clear 
that this shall only be applied to new XML Schema 
and only where that would not break 
compatibility, or backward compatibility, with 
existing relevant XML Schema. For example, a new 
revision of a MOIMS Navigation XML Schema shall 
not be required to adopt terms if that adoption 
would break backwards compatibility with the previous revisions of the schema.

Bigette Behal (Approve with Conditions): The 
process to take care of "obsolete" information in 
the cross cutting registries should be clarified 
(For instance when the "entity" that was the 
source/maintainer of the information is no longer active)

Keith Scott (Approve with Conditions): See attached

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

SLS

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

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

CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2015-12-006 
Approval to publish CCSDS 313.2-Y-1, Procedures 
for SANA Registry Specification (Yellow Book, Issue 1)
Results of CESG poll beginning 18 December 2015 and ending 21 January 2016:

                  Abstain:  0 (0%)
  Approve Unconditionally:  6 (75%) (Merri, Behal, Shames, Cola, Suess, Barton)
  Approve with Conditions:  2 (25%) (Barkley, Scott)
  Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

Erik Barkley (Approve with Conditions): One 
condition: From: "Registry Authority" To: "Review 
Authority". Rationale: Registries currently 
available via the SANA website do not list 
Registry Authorities, but rather "Review 
Authorities". The change makes the procedures and 
SANA metadata extant consistent.

A suggestion: CESG verification criteria 
guidelines for different classes of registries 
(enterprise, global, etc.) will be useful.

A side note for CESG consideration: WGs are often 
listed as the SANA Review authorities, however 
WGs, are suppose to go out of existence once 
their charter has been addressed; it might make 
sense to indicate the area rather than the WG as 
the review authority as Areas are constituted as standing bodies within CCSDS.

Keith Scott (Approve with Conditions): See attached.

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

SLS

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

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

CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2016-01-001 
Approval to release CCSDS 401.0-P-25.1, Radio 
Frequency and Modulation SystemsPart 1: Earth 
Stations and Spacecraft (Red Sheets, Issue 25.1) for CCSDS Agency review
Results of CESG poll beginning 12 January 2016 and ending 21 January 2016:

                  Abstain:  2 (22.22%) (Merri, Behal)
  Approve Unconditionally:  7 (77.78%) (Barkley, 
Shames, Scott, Cola, Calzolari, Suess, Barton)
  Approve with Conditions:  0 (0%)
  Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

Total Respondents: 9
All Areas responded to this question.

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

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

CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2016-01-002 
Approval to release CCSDS 766.1-P-1.1, Digital 
Motion Imagery (Pink Sheets, Issue 1.1) for CCSDS Agency review
Results of CESG poll beginning 12 January 2016 and ending 21 January 2016:

                  Abstain:  1 (11.11%) (Behal)
  Approve Unconditionally:  7 (77.78%) (Barkley, 
Merri, Scott, Cola, Calzolari, Suess, Barton)
  Approve with Conditions:  1 (11.11%) (Shames)
  Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions): Glad to 
see that JPEG2000 is now included.

However, I did not see an update of the 
706.11-Y-0MIAYellowBookFinal test report from the 
earlier Blue Book (which also seems to be 
incorrectly numbered). Was this tested using the 
same method as the other options and where is that documented?

Total Respondents: 9
All Areas responded to this question.

SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Approved with Conditions
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            Generate CMC poll

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 313x1y0_CESG_Approval- RIDS-eb-15-Jan-2016.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 273173 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg-all/attachments/20160122/9d854018/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CCSDS 313.1-Y-1 SIS RIDs.zip
Type: application/zip
Size: 104169 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg-all/attachments/20160122/9d854018/attachment.zip>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CCSDS 313.2-Y-1 SIS RIDs.zip
Type: application/zip
Size: 11562 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg-all/attachments/20160122/9d854018/attachment-0001.zip>