[Cesg-all] Results of CESG Polls closing 11 November 2022

Mon Nov 14 16:39:41 UTC 2022

CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2022-10-001 
Approval to release CCSDS 505.0-P-2.1, XML 
Specification for Navigation Data Messages (Pink 
Book, Issue 2.1) for CCSDS Agency review

Results of CESG poll beginning 28 October 2022 and ending 11 November 2022:

                 Abstain:  0 (0%)
Approve Unconditionally:  7 (100%) (Barkley, 
Merri, Duhaze, Shames, Cola, Aguilar Sanchez, Wilmot)
Approve with Conditions:  0 (0%)
Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

     Erik Barkley (Approve Unconditionally):  A 
minor editorial comment, not a condition, that 
can perhaps be treated as a RID during agency review:

pg 3-3, section 3.3, has text that states "...The 
body of several NDMs (e.g., APM, OCM, OMM, OPM, 
and RDM) shall consist of a single segment, as 
shown in figure 3-1...' Given that this is a 
normative section, and that it seems the NAVWG 
knows exactly which NDMs shall consist of a 
single segment, why not phrase this as exactly 
the NDMs that shall consist of a single 
segment?  ("several" and "shall' do not co-exist 
very well in a normative context)

A comment on combined instantations -- really 
just an FYI -- the TGFT recommendation allows 
related files to be packaged for transfer 
together; ie., an implemtation could have the 
option of providing multiple single NDM instance 
documents, packaged as a single transfer that 
could effectvely work as a combined instance if 
that is of use to an implementation.
In general I apprecaite the clean, clear, logical organization of the document.

     Jonathan Wilmot (Approve 
Unconditionally):  Consider this comment as 
agency review feedback: ANNEX A, IMPLEMENTATION 
CONFORMANCE STATEMENT (ICS) at a minimum should 
include a test to demonstrate that the XML schema 
is syntactically correct and can be parsed by at least one common XML tool.

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-2022-10-002 
Approval to release CCSDS 911.1-P-4.1, Space Link 
ExtensionReturn All Frames Service Specification 
(Pink Book, Issue 4.1) for CCSDS Agency review

Results of CESG poll beginning 28 October 2022 and ending 11 November 2022:

                 Abstain:  0 (0%)
Approve Unconditionally:  7 (100%) (Barkley, 
Merri, Duhaze, Shames, Cola, Aguilar Sanchez, Wilmot)
Approve with Conditions:  0 (0%)
Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

     Peter Shames (Approve 
Unconditionally):  Note that in sec 1.5.2.d that 
the API is a Magenta Book, recommended practice, and not a standard.
Note that in sec 1.6.1.8.14 the removal of SCID 
references implies that SCID has no meaning in 
the context of RAF.  Is that really the case?  Is 
the SCID not used to validate frames?

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-2022-10-003 
Approval to release CCSDS 911.2-P-3.1, Space Link 
ExtensionReturn Channel Frames Service 
Specification (Pink Book, Issue 3.1) for CCSDS Agency review

Results of CESG poll beginning 28 October 2022 and ending 11 November 2022:

                 Abstain:  0 (0%)
Approve Unconditionally:  7 (100%) (Barkley, 
Merri, Duhaze, Shames, Cola, Aguilar Sanchez, Wilmot)
Approve with Conditions:  0 (0%)
Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

     Peter Shames (Approve 
Unconditionally):  Please check sec 1.5.2.d and 
1.6.1.8.16 for consistency with the similar sections in RAF.

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-2022-10-004 
Approval to release CCSDS 911.5-P-3.1, Space Link 
ExtensionReturn Operational Control Fields 
Service Specification (Pink Book, Issue 3.1) for CCSDS Agency review

Results of CESG poll beginning 28 October 2022 and ending 11 November 2022:

                 Abstain:  0 (0%)
Approve Unconditionally:  7 (100%) (Barkley, 
Merri, Duhaze, Shames, Cola, Aguilar Sanchez, Wilmot)
Approve with Conditions:  0 (0%)
Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

     Peter Shames (Approve 
Unconditionally):   Please check that the 
contents of sec 1.5.2.d and 1.6.1.8.16 are 
consistent across SLE RAF, RCF, and this doc,

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-2022-10-005 
Approval to release CCSDS 912.1-P-4.1, Space Link 
ExtensionForward CLTU Service Specification 
(Pink Book, Issue 4.1) for CCSDS Agency review

Results of CESG poll beginning 28 October 2022 and ending 11 November 2022:

                 Abstain:  0 (0%)
Approve Unconditionally:  7 (100%) (Barkley, 
Merri, Duhaze, Shames, Cola, Aguilar Sanchez, Wilmot)
Approve with Conditions:  0 (0%)
Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

     Peter Shames (Approve 
Unconditionally):  Please verify that the 
handling of references to the SLE API, in sec 
1.5.2.d, and of SCIDs, in sec 1.6.1.8.13 are 
identical to those same sections in the other 
docs in this review set.  I do not believe that they are all consistent.

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-2022-10-006 
Approval to publish CCSDS 766.3-B-1, 
Specification for RTP as Transport for Audio and 
Video over DTN (Blue Book, Issue 1)

Results of CESG poll beginning 28 October 2022 and ending 11 November 2022:

                 Abstain:  0 (0%)
Approve Unconditionally:  2 (33.33%) (Merri, Cola)
Approve with Conditions:  4 (66.67%) (Barkley, Shames, Aguilar Sanchez, Wilmot)
Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

     Erik Barkley (Approve with Conditions):  A couple of  conditions:

1)  Minor editorial comment, but I think somewhat 
important - section 1.2, change "proposed" to 
"recommended" in "...This document provides an 
overview and proposed methods for transmission of video over DTN using RTP"
2) Figure 2-4, please correct "RTC 3550" to read 
"RFC 3550" -- rationale, both RTP and RTCP are defined in RFC 3550.

     Peter Shames (Approve with 
Conditions):   While this document should be very 
useful for that class of missions that requires 
the support of video over RTP over BP, the 
document, as written, is rather casual in form 
and does not conform to the usual CCSDS norms for 
Utilization Profile or Adaptation Profile style 
of Blue Books.  It is certainly "Blue-ish" in 
nature, but needs to be edited and tightened 
up.  It reads rather more like an agency research paper than a CCSDS Blue Book.

For examples of what I would have expected to see 
in terms of clear presentation of protocol 
stacks, PDU & end to end diagrams, etc please 
review IP Over CCSDS, 702.1-B-1.  Some of the 
text and figures, such as sec 2.5.3 and fig 2-10, 
mix protocol and implementation details.  This is not a CCSDS norm.
I recommend that you look at the SCCS-ARD, CCSDS 
901.1-M-1, which is, in fact, referenced in the 
test report, but not here, for some end-to-end 
and protocol stack examples.  You are, in 
essence, layering this on top of DTN, but these 
will give you some protocol stack and deployments 
examples to follow for clarity.  Also think about 
what support might be needed in relay nodes, 
ground stations, and other nodes along the way to 
support these high rate flows.

There are a number of standards mentioned in Sec 
3 that do not appear in the references (SDP, 
RTCP, SBS/PPS, H264, MPEG, MIME, and BPV7 (to 
pair with BPSec).  As noted by Wilmot, the ICS is 
rather abbreviated in nature compared to the details in the text itself.

Finally, I believe that the provisioning of such 
video services, both in space nodes and in ground 
systems, deserves creation of the relevant 
entries in the SANA Service Site and Aperture and 
Roles registries.  See also recent discussions in 
the DTN WG about DTN registries.

     Ignacio Aguilar Sanchez (Approve with 
Conditions):  1. Simplify section 2 Overview. 
Move and expand, if need be, selected topics in an accompanying Green Book.

2. Introduce managed information as for instance 
done in Annex F of the Bundle Protocol BB.

     Jonathan Wilmot (Approve with 
Conditions):  1) Some optional features do not 
have documented interoperability tests per CCSDS 
A02.1-Y-4 "in cases in which one or more options 
or features have not been demonstrated in at 
least two interoperable prototypes or 
implementations, the specification may advance to 
the CCSDS Recommended Standard level only if 
those options or features are removed;"

2)  Tests should include a range of delays, 
disruption durations, and out-of-order packets to 
simulate space use cases.  If the standard only 
applies to near earth scenarios,  then that should be stated.

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

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