[Cesg-all] Results of CESG Polls closing 13 June 2016

Tue Jun 14 22:50:14 UTC 2016

CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2016-05-001 Approval to release CCSDS 
506.0-P-2.1, Delta-Differential One Way Ranging (Delta-DOR) 
Operations (Pink Sheets, Issue 1.1) for CCSDS Agency review
Results of CESG poll beginning 27 May 2016 and ending 13 June 2016:

                  Abstain:  0 (0%)
  Approve Unconditionally:  3 (50%) (Barkley, Shames, Barton)
  Approve with Conditions:  3 (50%) (Merri, Cola, Calzolari)
  Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

Mario Merri (Approve with Conditions): I have the following comments:

A) Section 6.1 states: "In order to support Delta-DOR 
interoperability, it is necessary to transfer the
following data products between agencies:
a) service request;
b) exchange format raw Delta-DOR data (if any);
c) meteo data (TDM);
d) orbit ephemeris files (OEM);
e) reduced Delta-DOR data (TDM)."

However, in the reminder of the chapter I can only identify items a) 
(section 6.2), d) (Section 6.3). Please cover all items

B) Section 6.2.4 Service Request Naming Convention. Is this 
describing the filenaming conventions? If so, it is not clear. Please clarify.

C) Section 6. The document introduce the word "service". However, the 
standardisation of services is not limited only to the format of the 
message exchanged, but also to the modality of the exchange. 
Typically, it describes the "dialogue" between service consumer and 
service provider including possible error messages in case of wrong 
requests. Nothing of this nature appears in the document. I suggest 
that the document is changed to state that it describes data formats 
or data messages instead of services.

Tomaso de Cola (Approve with Conditions): In Table 6-1, DorOff 
appears as YYYY-DD: shouldn't it be YYYY-DDD instead?

Gian Paolo Calzolari (Approve with Conditions): Please consider at 
Review Time some harmonization of the new clauses to correctly show 
the normative approach by using the shall form. As an example see 
clause 6.2.1.5 The mechanism for Service Request exchange is defined 
in the IA (see annex A). that could be changed to 6.2.1.5 The 
mechanism for Service Request exchange defined in the IA (see annex 
A) shall be used.
Other example 6.2.3.3 The special lines $START and $END appear at the 
beginning and end of the items for each session. The special line 
$$EOF appears at the very end. (See annex C for examples.) that cane 
be changed to: 6.2.3.3 The special lines $START and $END shall appear 
at the beginning and end of the items for each session. The special 
line $$EOF shall appear at the very end. (See annex C for
examples.)
The condition - to avoid delaying the review start - is to generate a 
RID for the agency review

Total Respondents: 6
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-2016-05-002 Approval to release CCSDS 
506.3-R-1, Delta-DOR Quasar Catalogue Update Procedure (Red Book, 
Issue 1) for CCSDS Agency review
Results of CESG poll beginning 27 May 2016 and ending 13 June 2016:

                  Abstain:  1 (14.29%) (Merri)
  Approve Unconditionally:  6 (85.71%) (Barkley, Shames, Scott, Cola, 
Calzolari, Barton)
  Approve with Conditions:  0 (0%)
  Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

Keith Scott (Approve Unconditionally): Just a question: section 4 
(e.g. 4.3) of this document lists supporting material that must 
accompany catalog updates. None of that material is present here (the 
initial catalog). Is it the intent that such material will make it to 
FUTURE CESG / CMC reviews, or only as far as the DDOR WG and, by the 
time updates reach the CESG they will have been stripped of that information?

At this point just a comment but one that may cause more discussion 
later. This book assumes that the DDOR WG will exist in perpetuity 
(or be periodically reanimated) to receive and process updates to the 
catalog(s). I don't know the frequency at which updates will be 
coming, but it seems like it *might* either be a standing perpetual 
WG or a lot of administrative churn to keep reinstantiating the WG.

Total Respondents: 7
All Areas responded to this question.

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

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

CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2016-05-003 Approval to release CCSDS 
122.0-P-2.1, Image Data Compression (Pink Sheets, Issue 1.1) for 
CCSDS Agency review
Results of CESG poll beginning 27 May 2016 and ending 13 June 2016:

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

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

Erik Barkley (Approve Unconditionally): Comment only: recommend that 
reference [B8] be assigned a book number as soon as possible.

Total Respondents: 8
All Areas responded to this question.

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

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

CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2016-05-004 Approval to release CCSDS 
131.0-P-2.1, TM Synchronization and Channel Coding (Pink Sheets, 
Issue 2.1) for CCSDS Agency review
Results of CESG poll beginning 27 May 2016 and ending 13 June 2016:

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

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions): There are a number of issues 
with the draft. Some of these are just editorial, but the description 
of the CSM, in particular, seems to have both some confusing aspects 
and some inaccuracies. See attached mark-up for specific comments.

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-2016-05-005 Approval to release CCSDS 
231.0-P-2.1, TC Synchronization and Channel Coding (Pink Sheets, 
Issue 2.1) for CCSDS Agency review
Results of CESG poll beginning 27 May 2016 and ending 13 June 2016:

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

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

Erik Barkley (Approve with Conditions): 1) Annex A appears to have 
been erroneously included in the list of pink sheets -- there are no 
change markings. Suggest either removing these from the pink sheets 
prior to agency review or providing indication of changes.

Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions): There is one minor editorial 
issue identified on pg 2-4 in the attached mark-up.

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

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