[Cesg-all] Results of CESG Polls closing 13 September 2022

CCSDS Secretariat thomas.gannett at tgannett.net
Wed Sep 14 15:41:14 UTC 2022 

CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2022-08-001 
Approval of historical status for CCSDS 
912.3-B-3, Space Link Extension­Forward Space 
Packet Service Specification (Blue Book, Issue 3, August 2016)

Results of CESG poll beginning 30 August 2022 and ending 13 September 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%)

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-2022-08-002 
Approval to publish CCSDS 922.1-B-2, Cross 
Support Transfer Services­Monitored Data Service (Blue Book, Issue 2)

Results of CESG poll beginning 30 August 2022 and ending 13 September 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%)

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-2022-08-003 
Approval to release CCSDS 883.0-P-1.1, Spacecraft 
Onboard Interface Services­High Data Rate 
Wireless Proximity Network Communications (Pink 
Sheets, Issue 1.1) for CCSDS Agency review

Results of CESG poll beginning 30 August 2022 and ending 13 September 2022:

                  Abstain:  1 (16.67%) (Merri)
  Approve Unconditionally:  4 (66.67%) (Barkley, 
Shames, Aguilar Sanchez, Wilmot)
  Approve with Conditions:  1 (16.67%) (Cola)
  Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

      Erik Barkley (Approve 
Unconditionally):  Not a condtion for proceeding 
to agency review, but a request that can perhaps 
be addressed during agency review: the PICS Pro 
Format has a few table entries that have "M/O" 
notation which can be read as Mandotry or 
Optional?  Can some explanation be added as to 
what "M/O" means? This is on pages A-5 and 
A-6.  Taking a look at the current Blue book 
there is no explanation of "M/O" that I can find.

      Peter Shames (Approve 
Unconditionally):  Agree with Barkley & de Cola conditions

      Tomaso de Cola (Approve with 
Conditions):  PICS annex contain M/O 
(mandatory/optional) in the new entries as well 
as in one old entry. It is true that the review 
applies to the new text only, but I'wondering why an M/O should still stay.

      Jonathan Wilmot (Approve 
Unconditionally):  Note: Erik's comment will be 
added to the agency review comments for resolution.


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-2022-08-004 
Approval to release CCSDS 902.4-R-1, Cross 
Support Service Management­Service Package Data 
Formats (Red Book, Issue 1) for CCSDS Agency review

Results of CESG poll beginning 30 August 2022 and ending 13 September 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):  Noted a number of typos and 
loose use of English in the text.  Likewise 
issues with Acronym list.  I assume these will be 
caught in the final edit of the document.

I'd have to say that I am not particularly fond 
of all the cross references to other documents, 
particularly [4], but I understand the value of 
having one unambiguous reference for terms.

      Jonathan Wilmot (Approve 
Unconditionally):  Same comment as CCSDS 
902.9-R-1. ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS section is 
incomplete.  Can be updated as part of agency review.


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-2022-08-005 
Approval to release CCSDS 902.9-R-1, Cross 
Support Service Management­Service Management 
Utilization Request Formats (Red Book, Issue 1) for CCSDS Agency review

Results of CESG poll beginning 30 August 2022 and ending 13 September 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):  As 
noted elsewhere there are some minor typos and 
English issues that should be corrected in the final CTE edit.

      Ignacio Aguilar Sanchez (Approve 
Unconditionally):  For my own education and 
better understanding and without being an 
approval condition, I would appreciate a 
clarification concerning the relationship between 
902.9-R-1 and any of the other related  902.X shown in Fig. 1-1.

The figure seems to imply that for instance one 
would need to apply both 902.9 and 902.4 to 
implement a Service Package Request. Is this 
correct? Is there any other place in this 
document and/or 902.4 or other where such relationship is explained with text?

      Jonathan Wilmot (Approve 
Unconditionally):  Just a minor comment. 
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS section is incomplete. 
DDOR, OMM, SICF, and a few others are missing.


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-2022-08-006 
Approval to release CCSDS 902.12-P-1.1, Cross 
Support Service Management­Common Data Entities 
(Pink Book, Issue 1.1) for CCSDS Agency review

Results of CESG poll beginning 30 August 2022 and ending 13 September 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):  After chasing various SANA and 
other references backwards through these several 
documents I was happy to see them finally "run to ground" in this document.


Total Respondents:  7

All Areas responded to this question.



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

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

More information about the CESG-All mailing list