[Cesg-all] Results of CESG Polls closing 9 March 2023

[CCSDS Secretariat]

CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2023-02-001 Approval to publish CCSDS 130.3-G-1, Space Packet Protocol (Green Book, Issue 1)

Results of CESG poll beginning 23 February 2023 and ending 9 March 2023:

                 Abstain:  0 (0%)  
 Approve Unconditionally:  4 (80%) (Barkley, Shames, Cola, Aguilar Sanchez)
 Approve with Conditions:  1 (20%) (Merri)
 Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)  

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

     Mario Merri (Approve with Conditions):  Pag 2-1, Figure 2-1
The Figure and the associated text does not mention at all the option of channeling MO Service Messages through the SPP. Please note that there is a published Blue Book that standardise this aspect (CCSDS 524.1-B-1, Mission Operations--MAL Space Packet Transport Binding and Binary Encoding, https://public.ccsds.org/Pubs/524x1b1.pdf). Since MO Services are approved CCSDS standards, please update references, Figure and text (everywhere necessary) to include this.​

     Peter Shames (Approve Unconditionally):  ​Clearly written revision of this document.

Apropos Mario's condition ... I will point out that none of the application layer protocols nor frameworks are shown in Fig 2-1.  They all layer on SPP, therefore nothing more needs to be said, and to say more would only lead to clutter and inaccuracy as new upper protocols are developed.


Total Respondents:  5

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-2023-02-002 Approval to publish CCSDS 922.27-O-1, Cross Support Transfer Service—Return CFDP PDU Service (Orange Book, Issue 1)

Results of CESG poll beginning 23 February 2023 and ending 9 March 2023:

                 Abstain:  0 (0%)  
 Approve Unconditionally:  3 (60%) (Barkley, Merri, Aguilar Sanchez)
 Approve with Conditions:  2 (40%) (Shames, Cola)
 Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)  

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

     Mario Merri (Approve Unconditionally):  This is not a condition, but rather a question. Orange books are typically single agency experimental specifications. Shoudn't this single agency be named at the beginning of the document? I see that there is reference to ESA in an annex.

     Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions):  After reading this document, and considering all that is addressed, I believe that there are actually two separate, but related protocol entities defined:

1) The experimental RFCDP-CSTS that provides a transfer (and buffering) service for standard, or “reduced” CFDP PDUs, and

2) A modified CFDP protocol entity that is effectively split between the ESLT and the EUN, and that can create and process both standard and “reduced” CFDP PDUs.

The text and the diagrams are not really clear about both of these two different protocol entities and how they are intended to operate together.  See attached text, with mark-ups, for requested fixes.

     Tomaso de Cola (Approve with Conditions):  The reading of sections 1-2 is not so easy since a high-level description of the document scope is given, which does not allow to get the full picture in my opinion. In particular, the diagrams from Section 2 should be more elaborate to show how the proposed service fit with respect to the original CFDP implementation through the different network elements so involved. The current diagrams are in my opinion too high-level so that it's not clear how it should work in fact.

For the sake of the readability, I'd add a few explanatory paragraphs in the normative annexes where ASN.1 specifications are given. As it is now, at first glance it is not clear what those ASN.1 specifications are about.


Total Respondents:  5

All Areas responded to this question.



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

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