[Cesg-all] Results of CESG Polls closing 3 March 2017

[CCSDS Secretariat]

CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2017-02-003 
Approval to release CCSDS 523.2-R-1, Mission 
Operations Message Abstraction Layer—C++ API (Red 
Book, Issue 1) for CCSDS Agency review
Results of CESG poll beginning 18 February 2017 and ending 3 March 2017:

                  Abstain:  1 (14.29%) (Calzolari)
  Approve Unconditionally:  5 (71.43%) (Giulio, Merri, Behal, Burleigh, Wilmot)
  Approve with Conditions:  1 (14.29%) (Shames)
  Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions): This 
document contains a huge amount of detail and it 
was not possible to review it all in depth. That 
said I did check a number of topics and found no 
glaring errors. The document appears to have been 
carefully constructed and well documented. The 
one identified issue relates to the SANA 
registry, and a PID for that is attached. I think 
this does not need to stall the rest of the 
review and this item can be treated along with 
any others raised during agency review.

Gian Paolo Calzolari (Abstain): Editorial comments:

Ref. [3], [4], [B1] are listed but never called in the document.

Ref. [2] is only called in section 1.1 (non 
normative) so it should be informative reference.


Total Respondents: 7
All Areas responded to this question.

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

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

CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2017-02-004 
Approval to release CCSDS 524.3-R-1, Mission 
Operations—Message Abstraction Layer Binding to 
HTTP Transport and XML Encoding (Red Book, Issue 1) for CCSDS Agency review
Results of CESG poll beginning 18 February 2017 and ending 3 March 2017:

                  Abstain:  1 (14.29%) (Calzolari)
  Approve Unconditionally:  3 (42.86%) (Merri, Behal, Wilmot)
  Approve with Conditions:  3 (42.86%) (Barkley, Shames, Burleigh)
  Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

Erik Barkley (Approve with Conditions): 1) 
namespace in section 5.2 needs to be brought into 
conformance with RFC7738 which was filed in 2016 
by CCSDS with IANA and is the controlling document for CCSDS namespaces

2) registration of URI scheme "malhttp" is, in 
all likelyhood incorrectly indicated as being 
with SANA. To the best of my knoweldge URI 
schemes are registred with IANA. Please check and 
update as appropriate (ie., removal from SANA 
consideration, and perhaps RFC 4395 applies here).

Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions): There are 
many issues with this document. These are all 
marked in the attached PDF and the major ones are documented in the four PIDs.

Scott Burleigh (Approve with Conditions): Since, 
according to section 1.1 of this document, the 
MAL binding to HTTP and the XML encoding for MAL 
data types are mutually independent, I do not 
understand why they are being published together 
as a single book. Wouldn't the implementation, 
utilization, infusion, and maintenance of both 
standards be easier if they were published as 
separate documents? I can appreciate that 
publishing a single book might be 
administratively simpler, but I don't think 
that's a very good rationale. If there is a sound 
technical argument for combining these two 
standards in a single Blue Book I will gladly withdraw this condition.

In any event, I think it would be a profound 
service to the reader to state in section 1.1 
that the MAL binding pertains only to the MAL 
message header and the XML encoding pertains only 
to the MAL message body, as explained in the 
fourth paragraph of section 2.1. (If this is not 
true, then I think section 2.1 needs revision.)

Finally, is it the case that MAL can be bound to 
HTTP running over UDP as an alternative to TCP? 
Section 2.4.1 seems to indicate that it is, while 
section 3.4.1(2) and Table 3-5 indicate that it is not.

Gian Paolo Calzolari (Abstain): Editorial comments:

Ref. [5], [6], [8] are never called.

Ref. [4] only call4ed in non nomative sections, 
then it should be informative reference.


Total Respondents: 7
All Areas responded to this question.

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

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