[Cesg-all] Results of CESG Polls closing 28 July 2016

Fri Jul 29 20:11:29 UTC 2016

CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2016-06-001 
Approval to release CCSDS 732.1-R-1, Unified 
Space Link Protocol (Red Book, Issue 1) for CCSDS Agency review
Results of CESG poll beginning 30 June 2016 and ending 28 July 2016:

                  Abstain:  0 (0%)
  Approve Unconditionally:  7 (87.5%) (Barkley, 
Merri, Behal, Scott, Calzolari, Moury, Barton)
  Approve with Conditions:  1 (12.5%) (Shames)
  Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

Erik Barkley (Approve Unconditionally): No 
conditions, but to note (can be considered as part of agency review):

1) Section 2.2.2.7 -- states that there are three 
cases of periodic transfer service, but lists only two

2) Managed parameters -- where possible, suggest 
that ranges/min-max information be supplied; eg., 
I doubt that insert zone of gigabits is practical

3) In the registry section, suggest revising to 
just report the facts; ie statements like "If you 
make those two changes, then the existing registries and the Space Link
Identifiers Registry will be consistent.." are 
speculative at best. My understanding is that the 
WG is to work with SANA to arrive at the set of 
registries and/or registry modifications needed 
prior to agency review. In other words, a 
matter-of-fact statement of what the registries 
are and what the maintenance rules are (in conformance with RMP).

Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions): In 
reading thru this document I have found a number 
of editorial issues, but for the most part the 
document is in pretty good shape. Most of the 
identified issues are about clarity and 
presentation, but there are a few editorial issues as well.

Much of the complexity is due to covering both 
fixed and variable length frames and both TC & TM 
coding and synch approaches. Likewise the 
inclusion of both COP-1 and COP-P adds complexity 
that could be further worked. I am assuming that 
a book of this complexity and impact may well go 
through more than one Red Book review, so the WG 
may wish to send it out in its current form to 
gather a broader set of inputs before tackling these issues.

This is a revised submission following a review of the complete document.

Keith Scott (Approve Unconditionally): Attached 
are some comments that identify mostly editorial 
issues. I believe that in one case the service 
spec for one of the services is missing (?) as well.

The attached are comments and need not be 
addressed prior to releasing the document for 
agency review. I will submit RIDS during agency 
review for any serious issues I find.

--keith

Total Respondents: 8
All Areas responded to this question.

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

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

CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2016-07-001 
Approval to release CCSDS 524.2-R-1, Mission 
OperationsMessage Abstraction Layer Binding to 
TCP/IP Transport and Split Binary Encoding (Red 
Book, Issue 1) for CCSDS Agency review
Results of CESG poll beginning 18 July 2016 and ending 28 July 2016:

                  Abstain:  1 (20%) (Calzolari)
  Approve Unconditionally:  4 (80%) (Merri, Behal, Scott, Barton)
  Approve with Conditions:  0 (0%)
  Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

Total Respondents: 5
No response was received from the following Area(s):

SEA
CSS

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

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

CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2016-07-002 
Approval to release CCSDS 356.0-R-1, Network 
Layer Security Adaptation Profile (Red Book, Issue 1) for CCSDS Agency review
Results of CESG poll beginning 18 July 2016 and ending 28 July 2016:

                  Abstain:  0 (0%)
  Approve Unconditionally:  5 (83.33%) (Behal, Scott, Calzolari, Moury, Barton)
  Approve with Conditions:  1 (16.67%) (Merri)
  Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

Mario Merri (Approve with Conditions): Annex A:
1) it is indicated that this Annex is "to be 
supplied". I guess this should happen before the 
requested Agency Review. Please provide it.

2) Typo: confromance->conformance