From thomas.gannett at tgannett.net Tue Feb 4 23:47:44 2020 From: thomas.gannett at tgannett.net (CCSDS Secretariat) Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2020 18:47:44 -0500 Subject: [Cesg-all] New CESG Polls Message-ID: <5e3a02b1.1c69fb81.1bf75.717c@mx.google.com> Dear CESG Members, Seven new CESG polls have been posted to the CWE: - CESG-P-2020-02-001 Approval to publish CCSDS 313.0-Y-3, Space Assigned Numbers Authority (SANA)—Role, Responsibilities, Policies, and Procedures Yellow Book, Issue 3) - CESG-P-2020-02-002 Approval to publish CCSDS 313.1-Y-2, CCSDS SANA Registry Management Policy Yellow Book, Issue 2) - CESG-P-2020-02-003 Approval to publish CCSDS 313.2-Y-2, Procedures for SANA Registry Specification Yellow Book, Issue 2) - CESG-P-2020-02-004 Approval to publish CCSDS 315.1-Y-1, CCSDS URN Namespace Policy (Yellow Book, Issue 1) - CESG-P-2020-02-005 Approval to publish CCSDS 500.2-G-2, Navigation Data Messages Overview (Green Book, Issue 2) - CESG-P-2020-02-006 Approval to publish CCSDS 920.0-G-1, Cross Support Transfer Service Specification Framework Concept (Green Book, Issue 1) - CESG-P-2020-02-007 Approval to publish CCSDS 660.2-G-2, XML Telemetric and Command Exchange (XTCE) (Green Book, Issue 2) These polls can be accessed via the following link: https://public.ccsds.org/polls/SitePages/CESG%20Open%20Polls.aspx The closure date for these polls is 18 February 2020 NOTE TO CC RECIPIENTS: Only Area Directors and Deputy Area Directors vote on CESG polls. -------------- next part -------------- BEGIN:VCALENDAR PRODID:-//Microsoft Corporation//Outlook 14.0 MIMEDIR//EN VERSION:2.0 METHOD:PUBLISH X-MS-OLK-FORCEINSPECTOROPEN:TRUE BEGIN:VEVENT CATEGORIES:Orange Category CLASS:PUBLIC CREATED:20200204T234536Z DESCRIPTION:- CESG-P-2020-02-001 Approval to publish CCSDS 313.0-Y-3\, Spac e Assigned Numbers Authority (SANA) Role\, Responsibilities\, Policies\, a nd Procedures Yellow Book\, Issue 3)\n- CESG-P-2020-02-002 Approval to pub lish CCSDS 313.1-Y-2\, CCSDS SANA Registry Management Policy Yellow Book\, Issue 2)\n- CESG-P-2020-02-003 Approval to publish CCSDS 313.2-Y-2\, Proc edures for SANA Registry Specification Yellow Book\, Issue 2)\n- CESG-P-20 20-02-004 Approval to publish CCSDS 315.1-Y-1\, CCSDS URN Namespace Policy (Yellow Book\, Issue 1)\n- CESG-P-2020-02-005 Approval to publish CCSDS 5 00.2-G-2\, Navigation Data Messages Overview (Green Book\, Issue 2)\n- CES G-P-2020-02-006 Approval to publish CCSDS 920.0-G-1\, Cross Support Transf er Service Specification Framework Concept (Green Book\, Issue 1)\n- CESG- P-2020-02-007 Approval to publish CCSDS 660.2-G-2\, XML Telemetric and Com mand Exchange (XTCE) (Green Book\, Issue 2)\n DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20200219 DTSTAMP:20200204T120000Z DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20200218 LAST-MODIFIED:20200204T234536Z SEQUENCE:0 SUMMARY;LANGUAGE=en-us:CESG Poll Closure TRANSP:TRANSPARENT UID:040000008200E00074C5B7101A82E0080000000050873B4A8BDBD501000000000000000 01000000026CDFE2AB8FD534FAF1DB7C8F8FE2A10 X-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html:\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

- \; \;  \; \; \; \; CESG-P-2020-02-001 Approval to publish CCSDS 313.0-Y-3\, Space Assigned Numbers Authority (SANA) Role\, Responsibilities\, Policies\, and Procedur es Yellow Book\, Issue 3)

\n\n

- \; \; \; \; \; \; CESG-P-2020-02-002 Approva l to publish CCSDS 313.1-Y-2\, CCSDS SANA Registry Management Policy Yello w Book\, Issue 2)

\n\n

- \; \; \; \; \; \;< SPAN LANG="en-us"> CESG-P-2020-02-003 Approval to pub lish CCSDS 313.2-Y-2\, Procedures for SANA Registry Specification Yellow B ook\, Issue 2)

\n\n

- \; \; \; \; \; \; CESG-P-2020-02-004 Approval to publis h CCSDS 315.1-Y-1\, CCSDS URN Namespace Policy (Yellow Book\, Issue 1)

\n\n

-&nbs p\; \; \; \; \; \; CESG-P-2020-02-005 Approval to publish CCSDS 500.2-G-2\ , Navigation Data Messages Overview (Green Book\, Issue 2)\n\n

- \; \;&n bsp\; \; \; \; CESG-P-2020-02-006 Approval to publish CCSDS 920.0-G-1\, Cross Supp ort Transfer Service Specification Framework Concept (Green Book\, Issue 1 )

\n\n

- \; \; \; \; \; \; CESG-P-2020-02-007 Approval to publish CCSDS 660.2 -G-2\, XML Telemetric and Command Exchange (XTCE) (Green Book\, Issue 2)

\n\n\n X-MICROSOFT-CDO-BUSYSTATUS:FREE BEGIN:VALARM TRIGGER:-PT1080M ACTION:DISPLAY DESCRIPTION:Reminder END:VALARM END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR From thomas.gannett at tgannett.net Thu Feb 20 21:40:26 2020 From: thomas.gannett at tgannett.net (CCSDS Secretariat) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:40:26 -0500 Subject: [Cesg-all] Results of CESG Polls closing 19 February 2020 Message-ID: <5e4efd0f.1c69fb81.77385.3bc8@mx.google.com> CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2020-02-001 Approval to publish CCSDS 313.0-Y-3, Space Assigned Numbers Authority (SANA)—Role, Responsibilities, Policies, and Procedures Yellow Book, Issue 3) Results of CESG poll beginning 4 February 2020 and ending 19 February 2020: Abstain: 0 (0%) Approve Unconditionally: 3 (50%) (Shames, Burleigh, Wilmot) Approve with Conditions: 3 (50%) (Barkley, Merri, Calzolari) Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%) CONDITIONS/COMMENTS: Erik Barkley (Approve with Conditions): 1) General: Consider renaming SANA to give it a more accurately reflect its proper scope. SANA has long since outgrown such things spacecraft identifiers, APIDs. We have such things as role definitions, contacts registry, XML schema registries,sites and apertures, quasar catalogs, celestial body reference frames, CCSDS glossary etc. all of which are more than just mere registration of numbers. given that we have the sanaregistry.org URL etc. up and running it may be more trouble than it's worth to rename this. Alternatively, perhaps the document title could be revised (with any related scoping changes if needed) with an added indication in the document that for convience it is known simply SANA. 2) Re section 3.3: I highly recommend that CMC adopt a high level data governance policy and that this section be revised when such a policy is well defined. Rationale: it seems to me that once SANA has achieved a certain "weight" or "size" (which it has), summarily terminating SANA operations as indicated in the section could in fact be dangerous/ruinous. (For example, does "killing" the quasar catalog adversly affect ongoing interferometry determiations -- I suspect it might - or is the CCSDS policy such that any data maintained by SANA shall never be "rated" as worthy for inter-agency operations? I don't think that is the current intention but this kind of thing, for example, has never been stated). Some sort of overall policy/high level principles for data governance for the CCSDS organization should be stated and the management of SANA operations brought in line with such a policy. Such a high level policy should also address fitting with legal data protection considerations (e.g, the GPDR -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation). Mario Merri (Approve with Conditions): 1) Page 3-3 "NOTE ­ The CESG will not permit any standard specifying a registry to be sent for Agency review ...". It seems too me to strict a rule. I am sure that there will be situation where the CCSDS has an interest in publishing a book even if the associated registr(ies) is/are not finalised. Maybe the sentence could be modified to say ""NOTE ­ In general the CESG ..." and indicating that an AD who nevertheless approves the CESG poll needs to spell out why (s)he is content with a beta registry. 2) Page 3-5, Sec 3.10, last paragraph "The SANA Operator is responsible ...". See point 1 above. 3) Page 3-6 "the SANA shall send an email to cesg at mailman.ccsds.org to notify ...". I do not think this is necessary. CESG receives already too many emails. 4) Page 3-7 "The SANA Operator must not change the structure of any CCSDS registry without prior consent of the CESG or SSG ...". Not clear what CESG or SSG means. Is this "or" rather an "and"? Gian Paolo Calzolari (Approve with Conditions): See attached pdf file with PIDs. It is anticipated that some PIDs can require CESG wide discussion. PS: The winword file is also attached for convenience. Jonathan Wilmot (Approve Unconditionally): I agreed with many of the other conditions and just have two minor edits to add 1) ISection 3.11 "where is shall persist in Candidate" should be "where it shall persist in Candidate" 2) Section 3.12 the phrase "defined in the CCSDS Registry Management Policy" should have the actual book reference. Total Respondents: 6 All Areas responded to this question. SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with Conditions PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate CMC poll after conditions have been addressed * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2020-02-002 Approval to publish CCSDS 313.1-Y-2, CCSDS SANA Registry Management Policy Yellow Book, Issue 2) Results of CESG poll beginning 4 February 2020 and ending 19 February 2020: Abstain: 0 (0%) Approve Unconditionally: 3 (60%) (Shames, Burleigh, Wilmot) Approve with Conditions: 2 (40%) (Barkley, Merri) Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%) CONDITIONS/COMMENTS: Erik Barkley (Approve with Conditions): 1) In general, I believe CMC should state a clear data governance high level policy that is applicable to this yellow book. 2) Page 2-5, 2nd paragraph: I am unable to locate a "serivce catalog", "service access points" or "credential" new registries that exist on SANA. Please provide the official SANA links/URLs or revise the text to indicate what really exists. Mario Merri (Approve with Conditions): 1) Page 1-2 If the document contains "Normative Text" shouldn't it be a blue book instead of a Yellow book? 2) It seems to me that there are several overlaps between this document and CCSDS 313.0-Y-3, Space Assigned Numbers Authority (SANA)—Role, Responsibilities, Policies, and Procedures Yellow Book, for instance on pag 4-1 the SSG membership is spelled out which is also defined in 313.0-Y-3. On top of making this document massive (70 pages), duplicated requirements will make maintenance a nightmare. Please identify all duplicated requirements and assign them only to a single book. 3) Page 4-2: The XML Expert Group has nothing to do with registry and it is not clear why it is here. In addition the membership makes reference to WGs: as we know, in CCSDS WGs are volatile and can be created and dismentaleld. Jonathan Wilmot (Approve Unconditionally): Agree with other comment about duplication of material between CCSDS 313.0-Y-3, Space Assigned Numbers Authority (SANA)—Role, Responsibilities, Policies, and Procedure. Could one just reference the other as needed. Total Respondents: 5 No response was received from the following Area(s): SLS SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with Conditions PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate new CESG poll after conditions have been addressed * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2020-02-003 Approval to publish CCSDS 313.2-Y-2, Procedures for SANA Registry Specification Yellow Book, Issue 2) Results of CESG poll beginning 4 February 2020 and ending 19 February 2020: Abstain: 0 (0%) Approve Unconditionally: 3 (50%) (Shames, Burleigh, Wilmot) Approve with Conditions: 3 (50%) (Barkley, Merri, Calzolari) Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%) CONDITIONS/COMMENTS: Erik Barkley (Approve with Conditions): 1) Section 3.2.3 -- Does this need to be ammended to indicate inclusion of such evaluation in whatever subsequent request to SANA is issued? 2) Item 3.2.6 reads "Any requirement for a registry referencing global data, SANA, Terminology/Glossary, XML, Uniform Resource Name (URN), or Object Identifier (OID) shall use or extend an existing global category registry". This is confusing. What is meant by a regstiry referencing SANA? By defintion is not a registry in SANA? What is meant by a registry referencing Extensible Markup Language (XML) using or extending an existing global catagory registry? XML is simply a languge and not a registry category? Please rephrase this sentence Also, note I don't think there is a URN registry (I have suggested that this be considered in the CCSDS URN document poll). 3) Item 3.2.13 -- use the term "body" rather "group" in the phrase "...any CCSDS group that acts..." Rationale: avoid implication that only CCSDS working groups perform this function; a more inclusive term will help to make this more clear. 4) Item 3.2.14 -- please indicate how use of registry during prototype testing is to be documented. What would be the success crietria for a test plan in this case? 5) Annex A -- is this really intended as Normative template? A1 indicates that these are examples. As such replace "(NORMATIVE)" with "(INFORMATIVE)". 6) Annex A -- Strongly suggest putting the instructional aspects of this annex in italic font or in some other way offset from what is the body of text to be included verbatim from the example templates. Mario Merri (Approve with Conditions): 1) Page 1-1 If the document contains "Normative Text" shouldn't it be a blue book instead of a Yellow book? 2) I appreciate the desire to provide in a single book all what a WG needs to know. However, it seems to me that there are several overlaps between this document and CCSDS 313.0-Y-3, Space Assigned Numbers Authority (SANA)—Role, Responsibilities, Policies, and Procedures Yellow Book. Duplicated requirements will make maintenance a nightmare. Please identify all duplicated requirements and assign them only to a single book. Gian Paolo Calzolari (Approve with Conditions): See attached pdf file with PIDs. It is anticipated that some PIDs can require CESG wide discussion. PS: The winword file is also attached for convenience. Total Respondents: 6 All Areas responded to this question. SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with Conditions PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate CMC poll after conditions have been addressed * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2020-02-004 Approval to publish CCSDS 315.1-Y-1, CCSDS URN Namespace Policy (Yellow Book, Issue 1) Results of CESG poll beginning 4 February 2020 and ending 19 February 2020: Abstain: 0 (0%) Approve Unconditionally: 4 (66.67%) (Merri, Shames, Burleigh, Wilmot) Approve with Conditions: 2 (33.33%) (Barkley, Calzolari) Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%) CONDITIONS/COMMENTS: Erik Barkley (Approve with Conditions): 1) Section 3.2: -- Please address registring s with SANA. A request from SANA is indicated, but no registry for URN related items is indicated. 2) Section 3.2 -- It may not necessarily be a CCSDS Working Group requesting a value; modify text to indicate a CCSDS body, such as "The keyword is chosen by a requesting CCSDS body such as a CCSDS working group" rather than " The keyword is chosen by the requesting CCSDS working group". 3) Document in general: following up from 1), does there need to be a SANA registry for all URN strings? The book indicates URNs for documents, schemas, even SANA registries, but does not indicate registering the URN strings -- how are these to be tracked if not some sort of SANA registry for the URN strings? Please address. 4) XML Expert Group -- Please clarify what this expert group's involvment is with management of URNs -- there does not appear to be any real role defined here. Gian Paolo Calzolari (Approve with Conditions): See attached pdf file with PIDs. It is anticipated that some PIDs can require CESG wide discussion. PS: The winword file is also attached for convenience. Total Respondents: 6 All Areas responded to this question. SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with Conditions PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate CMC poll after conditions have been addressed * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2020-02-005 Approval to publish CCSDS 500.2-G-2, Navigation Data Messages Overview (Green Book, Issue 2) Results of CESG poll beginning 4 February 2020 and ending 19 February 2020: Abstain: 1 (16.67%) (Calzolari) Approve Unconditionally: 5 (83.33%) (Barkley, Merri, Shames, Burleigh, Wilmot) Approve with Conditions: 0 (0%) Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%) CONDITIONS/COMMENTS: Jonathan Wilmot (Approve Unconditionally): Not a condition. The book references several schemmas for message exchange. The data types provided are not specific enough to exchange data. The data type "positiveInteger" has no size (64, 32, 16). Implementations require that information to interpret the message. The data types names are also different than other CCSDS schemas/books. I say this to reinforce the need for "on the wire" message definitions to exchange data between systems with consistent types. This is part of a much wiider CESG discussion. This is a problen to be solved quickly for major international programs. Total Respondents: 6 All Areas responded to this question. SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved Unconditionally PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate CMC poll * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2020-02-006 Approval to publish CCSDS 920.0-G-1, Cross Support Transfer Service Specification Framework Concept (Green Book, Issue 1) Results of CESG poll beginning 4 February 2020 and ending 19 February 2020: Abstain: 0 (0%) Approve Unconditionally: 4 (66.67%) (Barkley, Shames, Burleigh, Wilmot) Approve with Conditions: 2 (33.33%) (Merri, Calzolari) Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%) CONDITIONS/COMMENTS: Mario Merri (Approve with Conditions): 1) General: The CSS, and consequently the CSTS, deals with moving TM, TC and other auxiliary data between Ground Station and Control Centre. This is never mentioned in the document and these two terms (Ground Station and Control Centre) never appear once in the entire document. This is an important missing information in the Green Book, which leads to confused readers. As a minimum this should be explicitly and clearly expressed in the "Scope" section. 2) This is not a condition, just a comment: It is a pity to see re-confirmed that the CCSDS has developed 2 similar service frameworks (MO and CSTS). Peter Shames (Approve Unconditionally): This document is in quite good shape, but it does contain a number of what I would characterize as editorial issues. Examples of these are in the attached PID file. Gian Paolo Calzolari (Approve with Conditions): See attached PIDs Total Respondents: 6 All Areas responded to this question. SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with Conditions PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate CMC poll after conditions have been addressed * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2020-02-007 Approval to publish CCSDS 660.2-G-2, XML Telemetric and Command Exchange (XTCE) (Green Book, Issue 2) Results of CESG poll beginning 4 February 2020 and ending 19 February 2020: Abstain: 0 (0%) Approve Unconditionally: 4 (80%) (Merri, Shames, Burleigh, Wilmot) Approve with Conditions: 1 (20%) (Barkley) Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%) CONDITIONS/COMMENTS: Erik Barkley (Approve with Conditions): 1) Why is the XTCE XML Schema not addressed in this book? A quick search shows that OMG has an .XSD file available for XTCE (see https://www.omg.org/spec/XTCE). I think, even at the level of green book, such a refrence is useful to have. Total Respondents: 5 No response was received from the following Area(s): SLS SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with Conditions PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate CMC poll after conditions have been addressed * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From thomas.gannett at tgannett.net Thu Feb 27 15:29:13 2020 From: thomas.gannett at tgannett.net (CCSDS Secretariat) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 10:29:13 -0500 Subject: [Cesg-all] Results of CMC Polls Closing 24 February 2020 Message-ID: <5e57e04c.1c69fb81.9ece8.208d@mx.google.com> CMC E-Poll Identifier: CMC-P-2020-02-001 Authorization to release CCSDS 211.0-P-5.1, Proximity-1 Space Link Protocol—Data Link Layer (Pink Sheets, Issue 5.1) for CCSDS Agency review Results of CMC poll beginning 10 February 2020 and ending 24 February 2020: Adopt: 7 (100%) (CNES, CNSA, DLR, ESA, INPE, JAXA, NASA) Adopt Provisionally: 0 (0%) Reject: 0 (0%) Reject with Comments: 0 (0%) Results are based on responses from 7 out of 11 members (63.64%). No response was received from the following Agencies: ASI UKSA CSA RFSA Secretariat Interpretation of Results: Adopted Resulting CMC Resolution: CMC-R-2020-02-001 Inferred Secretariat Action: Release Review Document * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CMC E-Poll Identifier: CMC-P-2020-02-002 Authorization to publish CCSDS 350.8-M-2, Information Security Glossary of Terms (Magenta Book, Issue 2) Results of CMC poll beginning 10 February 2020 and ending 24 February 2020: Adopt: 7 (100%) (CNES, CNSA, DLR, ESA, INPE, JAXA, NASA) Adopt Provisionally: 0 (0%) Reject: 0 (0%) Reject with Comments: 0 (0%) Results are based on responses from 7 out of 11 members (63.64%). No response was received from the following Agencies: ASI UKSA CSA RFSA Secretariat Interpretation of Results: Adopted Resulting CMC Resolution: CMC-R-2020-02-002 Inferred Secretariat Action: Publish Document * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CMC E-Poll Identifier: CMC-P-2020-02-003 Authorization to publish CCSDS 355.1-B-1, Space Data Link Security Protocol—Extended Procedures (Blue Book, Issue 1) Results of CMC poll beginning 10 February 2020 and ending 24 February 2020: Adopt: 7 (100%) (CNES, CNSA, DLR, ESA, INPE, JAXA, NASA) Adopt Provisionally: 0 (0%) Reject: 0 (0%) Reject with Comments: 0 (0%) Results are based on responses from 7 out of 11 members (63.64%). No response was received from the following Agencies: ASI UKSA CSA RFSA Secretariat Interpretation of Results: Adopted Resulting CMC Resolution: CMC-R-2020-02-003 Inferred Secretariat Action: Publish Document * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CMC E-Poll Identifier: CMC-P-2020-02-004 Authorization to publish CCSDS 401.0-B-30, Radio Frequency and Modulation Systems—Part 1: Earth Stations and Spacecraft (Blue Book, Issue 30) Results of CMC poll beginning 10 February 2020 and ending 24 February 2020: Adopt: 7 (100%) (CNES, CNSA, DLR, ESA, INPE, JAXA, NASA) Adopt Provisionally: 0 (0%) Reject: 0 (0%) Reject with Comments: 0 (0%) Results are based on responses from 7 out of 11 members (63.64%). No response was received from the following Agencies: ASI UKSA CSA RFSA Secretariat Interpretation of Results: Adopted Resulting CMC Resolution: CMC-R-2020-02-004 Inferred Secretariat Action: Publish Document * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CMC E-Poll Identifier: CMC-P-2020-02-005 Authorization to publish CCSDS 660.0-B-2, XML Telemetric and Command Exchange—Version 1.2 (Blue Book, Issue 2) Results of CMC poll beginning 10 February 2020 and ending 24 February 2020: Adopt: 7 (100%) (CNES, CNSA, DLR, ESA, INPE, JAXA, NASA) Adopt Provisionally: 0 (0%) Reject: 0 (0%) Reject with Comments: 0 (0%) Results are based on responses from 7 out of 11 members (63.64%). No response was received from the following Agencies: ASI UKSA CSA RFSA Secretariat Interpretation of Results: Adopted Resulting CMC Resolution: CMC-R-2020-02-005 Inferred Secretariat Action: Publish Document * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From thomas.gannett at tgannett.net Fri Feb 28 22:27:58 2020 From: thomas.gannett at tgannett.net (Thomas Gannett) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 17:27:58 -0500 Subject: [Cesg-all] =?iso-8859-1?q?CCSDS_Review_of_CCSDS_211=2E0-P-5=2E1?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=2C_Proximity-1_Space_Link_Protocol=97Data_Link_Layer?= Message-ID: <5e5993f0.1c69fb81.f3b77.21ab@mx.google.com> Control Number: PRP 20-01 The following draft CCSDS Recommended Standard has been placed on line for CCSDS Agency review: CCSDS 211.0-P-5.1. Proximity-1 Space Link Protocol--Data Link Layer. Pink Sheets. Issue 5.1. February 2020. DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: The CCSDS Recommended Standard for Proximity-1 Space Link Protocol—Data Link Layer specifies the protocol, services, and procedures pertaining to the CCSDS Version-3 Transfer Frame. The current draft update adds text related to use of the CCSDS Version-4 (USLP) Transfer Frame. The due date for receipt of review comments by the Review Coordinator is 28 April 2020. Area Directors and WG/BOF Chairs may submit review comments directly to the CCSDS Review Coordinator. More information is available at the Web site identified below. The review document, in Portable Document Format (PDF), and associated review materials are available for downloading at the following location: http://public.ccsds.org/review/ NOTES 1 Per CMC Action Item CMC-A-2007-10-05, agency reviewers are reminded to review for compliance with the CCSDS Publications Manual as well as technical content. 2 Per CESG Resolution CESG-R-2008-10-006, the CESG no longer conducts pre-Agency-review reviews but is instead expected to participate in Agency reviews when they are announced. Thomas Gannett thomas.gannett at tgannett.net +1 443 472 0805