[Cesg-all] Results of CESG Polls closing 5 June 2019

[CCSDS Secretariat]

CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2019-05-004 Approval to publish CCSDS 
123.0-B-2 Cor. 1, Technical Corrigendum 1 to CCSDS 123.0-B-2, Issued 
February 2019
Results of CESG poll beginning 22 May 2019 and ending 5 June 2019:

                 Abstain:  1 (14.29%) (Merri)
Approve Unconditionally:  6 (85.71%) (Barkley, Shames, Burleigh, 
Cola, Calzolari, Wilmot)
Approve with Conditions:  0 (0%) Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)
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-2019-05-005 Approval to publish CCSDS 
320.0-M-7 Cor. 1, Corrigendum 1 to CCSDS 320.0-M-7, Issued November 2017
Results of CESG poll beginning 22 May 2019 and ending 5 June 2019:

                 Abstain:  0 (0%) Approve Unconditionally:  4 (80%) 
(Shames, Burleigh, Cola, Wilmot)
Approve with Conditions:  1 (20%) (Calzolari)
Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

     Peter Shames (Approve Unconditionally):   See attached file with 
answers to Gippo's RIDs

     Gian Paolo Calzolari (Approve with Conditions):   See PIDs


Total Respondents:  5

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

     MOIMS
     CSS



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

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2019-05-006 Approval to publish CCSDS 
357.0-B-1, CCSDS Authentication Credentials (Blue Book, Issue 1)
Results of CESG poll beginning 22 May 2019 and ending 5 June 2019:

                 Abstain:  1 (16.67%) (Calzolari)
Approve Unconditionally:  5 (83.33%) (Merri, Shames, Burleigh, Cola, Wilmot)
Approve with Conditions:  0 (0%) Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)
Total Respondents:  6

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

     CSS



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

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2019-05-007 Approval to publish CCSDS 
734.3-B-1, Schedule-Aware Bundle Routing (Blue Book, Issue 1)
Results of CESG poll beginning 22 May 2019 and ending 5 June 2019:

                 Abstain:  1 (16.67%) (Calzolari)
Approve Unconditionally:  4 (66.67%) (Barkley, Shames, Burleigh, Cola)
Approve with Conditions:  1 (16.67%) (Wilmot)
Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

     Erik Barkley (Approve Unconditionally):   Some editorial changes 
suggested:


1) Suggest deleting "predicted" in "...where changes in connectivity 
are planned and scheduled, rather than predicted, discovered.."   The 
rational is that that planning and schedule are in fact predictions 
-- the schedule rests on mutual visibility between apertures which in 
trun rests on trajectory information which in fact is a prediction. 
As written this is confusing --removing "predicted" will clear this up.


2) Power-conserving motes  -- should this read power-conserving modes?

     Peter Shames (Approve Unconditionally):   I have to admit to 
being a little puzzled as to why this document, which even says that 
it defines procedures, and has no normative data structures nor PDUs, 
is classified as a Blue Book.  According to the CCSDS Org & Proc doc, 
A02x1y4c2, Sec B.1.1.b, a Magenta Book:

Magenta Books may document guidelines for standardized processes or 
procedures for accomplishing tasks. ... Practices say, "Here is how 
the community recommends that one should carry out or describe this 
particular kind of operation at present, or how the community 
recommends that it should be carried out in the future."

I understand that implementations were created and tested, and that 
is laudable, but I am left wondering how any sort of normative 
testing could have been carried out in the absence of data format or 
PDU compliant exchanges.
And yes, I do understand that we are far down the road toward 
publication, but just how we got here is a puzzlement.

     Jonathan Wilmot (Approve with Conditions):  This may not be a 
condition, but  just a questions of scope. Along the lines of Peter's 
comments, the book seems incomplete as a blue book, but maybe I am 
just reading it out of context. The book discusses some of the issues 
that a NASA mission is working through with regard to management of 
storage resources and priority between hops that feed into the CGR, 
but I do not see sufficient detail to have interoperable systems. 
There is no MIB defined as in other books but parameters like route 
volume limit (RVL), effective volume limit (EVL), and maximum 
transmission volume (MTV) would be defined and need to be exchanged 
between systems. Where would these exchange protocols be defined? I 
have several similar questions but they too may be out of scope for 
this document.


Total Respondents:  6

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

     MOIMS



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

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