[Cesg-all] Results of CESG Poll CESG-P-2017-02-003

[Shames, Peter M (312B)]

I concur.  That was, indeed, my intent.

Thanks, Peter


From: CESG-All <cesg-all-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> on behalf of Tom Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>
Date: Sunday, March 5, 2017 at 11:05 AM
To: CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG All <cesg-all at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: Re: [Cesg-all] Results of CESG Poll CESG-P-2017-02-003

Dear CESG Members,

The single conditional approval vote for approval
to release CCSDS 523.2-R-1 is qualified with the
statement, "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." Therefore, upon forwarding the
PID to the working group, the Secretariat will
consider the condition to be resolved and proceed to CMC polling.

At 01:56 PM 3/5/2017, CCSDS Secretariat wrote:
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-All mailing list
CESG-All at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:CESG-All at mailman.ccsds.org>
https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cesg-all

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg-all/attachments/20170306/0ed16e95/attachment.html>