[Cesg-all] Results of CESG Polls closing 6 December 2018

[Thomas Gannett]

Apologies: please ignore. (Previous message was the product of unruly 
automation.)

At 11:05 AM 2/19/2019, CCSDS Secretariat wrote:
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
>CESG E-Poll Identifier:
>Results of CESG poll beginning 21 November 2018 and ending 6 December 2018:
>
>                  Abstain:  1 (20%) (Calzolari)
>  Approve Unconditionally:  4 (80%) (Barkley, Merri, Burleigh, Wilmot)
>  Approve with Conditions:  0 (0%)
>  Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)
>
>CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:
>
>      Erik Barkley (Approve Unconditionally):  Comment only: a 
> complete code listing (API "header" file) would be useful and/or 
> some indication of the same in SANA.
>
>
>Total Respondents:  5
>No response was received from the following Area(s):
>
>      SEA
>
>SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Approved Unconditionally
>PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            Generate CMC poll
>
>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>CESG E-Poll Identifier:
>Results of CESG poll beginning 21 November 2018 and ending 6 December 2018:
>
>                  Abstain:  1 (20%) (Merri)
>  Approve Unconditionally:  4 (80%) (Barkley, Burleigh, Calzolari, Wilmot)
>  Approve with Conditions:  0 (0%)
>  Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)
>
>Total Respondents:  5
>No response was received from the following Area(s):
>
>      SEA
>
>SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Approved Unconditionally
>PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            Generate CMC poll
>
>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>CESG E-Poll Identifier:
>Results of CESG poll beginning 21 November 2018 and ending 6 December 2018:
>
>                  Abstain:  1 (20%) (Merri)
>  Approve Unconditionally:  4 (80%) (Barkley, Burleigh, Calzolari, Wilmot)
>  Approve with Conditions:  0 (0%)
>  Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)
>
>Total Respondents:  5
>No response was received from the following Area(s):
>
>      SEA
>
>SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Approved Unconditionally
>PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            Generate CMC poll
>
>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>CESG E-Poll Identifier:
>Results of CESG poll beginning 21 November 2018 and ending 6 December 2018:
>
>                  Abstain:  1 (20%) (Calzolari)
>  Approve Unconditionally:  3 (60%) (Merri, Burleigh, Wilmot)
>  Approve with Conditions:  1 (20%) (Barkley)
>  Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)
>
>CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:
>
>      Erik Barkley (Approve with Conditions):  Editorial suggestion: 
> Section 1.1:  FROM "...Specifically, the Servicie Access Point 
> (SAP) primitives..."  TO  "...Specifically, the Service Access 
> Point (SAP) primitives..."
>
>Condition:
>
>The "*" annotation on Page A-1 for Mandatory Features is unclear. It 
>states that "*at least one of these primitives to be implemented" It 
>seems to me that PACKET_SEND.request and PACKET_RECEIVE.indication 
>have to marked with the check mark -- I fail to see how just 
>implementing one of these is all that is needed for mandatory 
>features.  Please double check and updated/and or provide clarifying 
>information.
>
>Suggestion (not a condition):
>
>I believe current practice is not to require SANA registires section 
>for agency review; nontheless it must be present before final 
>publication and therefore I suggest that this be added piror to agency review.
>
>
>Total Respondents:  5
>No response was received from the following Area(s):
>
>      SEA
>
>SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Approved with Conditions
>PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            Generate CMC poll after 
>conditions have been addressed
>
>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>CESG E-Poll Identifier:
>Results of CESG poll beginning 21 November 2018 and ending 6 December 2018:
>
>                  Abstain:  1 (20%) (Calzolari)
>  Approve Unconditionally:  3 (60%) (Merri, Burleigh, Wilmot)
>  Approve with Conditions:  1 (20%) (Barkley)
>  Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)
>
>CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:
>
>      Erik Barkley (Approve with Conditions):  A condition:
>Re Test Report: can the test report be made more clear to discuss 
>the failed test cases -- it is difficult to search the document for 
>"failed" (many hits for DELIVERY_FAILED)  and I did not get a good 
>sense of discusion as to resolution re the failed test cases -- it 
>appears that some of the failures are expected but again, I can not 
>get a good sense of whether or not testing was complete.
>
>A suggestion (not a condition):
>
>Re RID Report:  There are minor irregularites in that all of the RID 
>resolutions do not appear to record the final conclusion in all 
>cases (last column in the spreadsheet is balnk for serveral RID 
>rows), but this tends to be inferred from the proposed response and 
>actions columns.  For clarity and completeness it is suggested to 
>have all RIDS conclusions fully documented, especially with respect 
>to the "Agreement of author wrt. Proposed action" column.
>
>
>Total Respondents:  5
>No response was received from the following Area(s):
>
>      SEA
>
>SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Approved with Conditions
>PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            Generate CMC poll after 
>conditions have been addressed
>
>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Thomas Gannett
thomas.gannett at tgannett.net
+1 443 472 0805