[Cesg-all] Results of CESG Polls closing 18 October 2019

[CCSDS Secretariat]

CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2019-10-001 
Approval to release CCSDS 121.0-P-2.1, Lossless 
Data Compression (Pink Sheets, Issue 2.1) for CCSDS Agency review
Results of CESG poll beginning 4 October 2019 and ending 18 October 2019:

                 Abstain:  0 (0%) Approve 
Unconditionally:  5 (100%) (Merri, Shames, Burleigh, Cola, Calzolari)
Approve with Conditions:  0 (0%) Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

     Scott Burleigh (Approve 
Unconditionally):  Note, not a condition: on 
pages 2-3 and 5-6, "File Deliver Protocol" should 
be changed to "File Delivery Protocol".


Total Respondents:  5

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

     CSS
     SOIS



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

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2019-10-002 
Approval to publish CCSDS 500.0-G-4, Navigation 
Data—Definitions and Conventions (Green Book, Issue 4)
Results of CESG poll beginning 4 October 2019 and ending 18 October 2019:

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

     Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions):  I 
skimmed the document and looked, in particular, at the stated contents:

b)Section 3 provides foundational information on 
the data types and units served by the navigation messages.

c)Section 4 provides details about coordinate 
frames, time systems, astrodynamics constants, 
environmental models, and other ancillary 
concepts important in spacecraft navigation.

d)Section 5 discusses properties and processes of 
the entities that participate in a navigation data exchange.

e)Section 6 discusses the types and associated 
attributes of measurements that may be made during a navigation session.

I am left wondering is this document is really 
best characterized as a Green Book, or if its 
contents and intended use really make it a 
Magenta Book in nature?  Magenta Books, after all, state this:

    6.1.4.3 Recommended Practices are normative 
and have prescriptive content but are typically 
not directly implementable for interoperability 
or cross support. They may be of several types:

        a)  specifications that are 
“foundational” for other specifications, but 
within themselves do not define content in a way 
that allows independent development and testing 
of separate but interoperable systems;
Have you considered characterizing this as an MB?

     Scott Burleigh (Approve 
Unconditionally):   Note, not a condition: on 
page 4-10, for clarity, the x-axis of the graph 
should be labeled "difference in seconds" or something to that effect.


Total Respondents:  5

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

     CSS
     SOIS



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

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2019-10-003 
Approval to publish CCSDS 500.1-G-2, 
Delta-DOR—Technical Characteristics and Performance (Green Book, Issue 2)
Results of CESG poll beginning 4 October 2019 and ending 18 October 2019:

                 Abstain:  0 (0%) Approve 
Unconditionally:  5 (100%) (Merri, Shames, Burleigh, Cola, Calzolari)
Approve with Conditions:  0 (0%) Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)
Total Respondents:  5

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

     CSS
     SOIS



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

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2019-10-004 
Approval to publish CCSDS 508.1-B-1, Re-entry Data Message (Blue Book, Issue 1)
Results of CESG poll beginning 4 October 2019 and ending 18 October 2019:

                 Abstain:  1 (20%) (Calzolari)
Approve Unconditionally:  3 (60%) (Merri, Burleigh, Cola)
Approve with Conditions:  1 (20%) (Shames)
Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

     Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions):   In 
Sec B.1.2, re consequnce of not applying 
security, isn't it possible that an RDM could be 
tampered with and there is no mechanism defined 
to detect this?  This is surely a more general 
concern in CCSDS in general, but the addition of 
a simple checksum, or a digital signature, would 
provide a significant boost in data confidence.

In sec B2, the last paragraph, there is the statement:

    "The registration rule for new entries in the 
registry is the approval of new requests by the 
CCSDS Area or Working Group responsible for the 
maintenance of the RDM at the time of the request. "

I am left wondering "new entries in which 
registry"?  AFAIK there is no new registry 
specified in this document.  Is this intended to 
reference the registry of the XML spec?  If so, 
that should be clear.  Likewise any process for 
updating the spec and marking a new version.


Total Respondents:  5

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

     CSS
     SOIS



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

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