[Cesg-all] Results of CESG Polls closing 5 July 2024

[CCSDS Secretariat]

CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2024-06-001 Approval to release CCSDS 522.2-R-2, Mission Operations—Mission Data Product Distribution Services (Red Book, Issue 2) for CCSDS Agency review

Results of CESG poll beginning 21 June 2024 and ending 5 July 2024:

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

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

     Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions):  ​I find the document to have a substantial number of vague and inaccurate statements and "specifications".  The attached document with mark-ups provides all the details.  I also concur with Tomaso that the points he raised should be addressed.

     Tomaso de Cola (Approve with Conditions):  ​I've some doubts about Section 4 about the MDPS Information Model. In the introductory sentences in 4.1 it is noted that per se the MDPS model is not normative but only informative, while normative are the data formats and services derived from it. However, the services are specified in Section 3, i.e. before the description of the MDPS Information model. It is also not clear what is really normative in this Section 4, is it about the MDPS data items and types?

I'm also wondering whether Section 5 and 6 could be moved to normative annexes at the end of the document.

     Jonathan Wilmot (Approve Unconditionally):  Agree with Peter and Tomaso with a additional comment

In the definition of "product" 1.1 states "... structure known to the product’s producer and consumers." Would is make sense to also recommend ​ a mechanism for the exchange and/or specification of these structure definitions?​


Total Respondents:  5

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

     CSS



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

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

CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2024-06-002 Approval to release CCSDS 522.1-P-1.1, Mission Operations Monitor & Control Services (Pink Book, Issue 1.1) for CCSDS Agency review

Results of CESG poll beginning 21 June 2024 and ending 5 July 2024:

                 Abstain:  0 (0%)  
 Approve Unconditionally:  4 (100%) (Fischer, Cola, Aguilar Sanchez, Wilmot)
 Approve with Conditions:  0 (0%)  
 Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)  

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

     Jonathan Wilmot (Approve Unconditionally):  ​General concern about many of the MO interaction patterns with the "remote Service Provider" being a spacecraft, but I will assume missions would decide what interaction patterns are supported. Patterns such as asking for a single parameter can have unacceptable impacts on resource utilization and real-time performance.​


Total Respondents:  4

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

     SEA
     CSS



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

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

CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2024-06-003 Approval to publish CCSDS 350.11-G-1, Space Data Link Security Protocol—Extended Procedures—Summary of Concept of Rationale (Green Book, Issue 1)

Results of CESG poll beginning 21 June 2024 and ending 5 July 2024:

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

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

     Erik Barkley (Approve Unconditionally):  ​Just a minor comment -- there is text re design taking constraints for SLE into account, but no references are called out for SLE.  Also, it seems that the concept is transparent re use of SLE. If that is truly the case, perhaps the compatibiliy constraint statements (pg 1-1., 2-1) could be removed? 

     Tomaso de Cola (Approve Unconditionally):  Just a minor comment, in Figs. 2-1 and 2-2, maybe it's better to put defined in [1]/[2] instead of 350.0/350.1


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-2024-06-004 Approval of historical status for CCSDS 706.1-G-2, Motion Imagery and Applications (Green Book, Issue 2, May 2015)

Results of CESG poll beginning 21 June 2024 and ending 5 July 2024:

                 Abstain:  0 (0%)  
 Approve Unconditionally:  6 (100%) (Barkley, Fischer, Shames, Cola, Aguilar Sanchez, Wilmot)
 Approve with Conditions:  0 (0%)  
 Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)  

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-2024-06-005 Reconfirmation of CCSDS 120.3-G-1, Spectral Pre-Processing Transform for Multispectral & Hyperspectral Image Compression (Green Book, Issue 1, March 2019)

Results of CESG poll beginning 21 June 2024 and ending 5 July 2024:

                 Abstain:  0 (0%)  
 Approve Unconditionally:  7 (100%) (Barkley, Fischer, Shames, Cola, Aguilar Sanchez, Moury, 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

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