[Cesg-all] Results of CESG Polls closing 17 May 2024

[CCSDS Secretariat]

CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2024-04-001 Approval to publish CCSDS 732.1-B-3, Unified Space Data Link Protocol (Blue Book, Issue 3)

Results of CESG poll beginning 28 April 2024 and ending 17 May 2024:

                 Abstain:  0 (0%)  
 Approve Unconditionally:  6 (85.71%) (Barkley, Fischer, Shames, Aguilar Sanchez, Moury, Wilmot)
 Approve with Conditions:  1 (14.29%) (Cola)
 Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)  

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

     Erik Barkley (Approve Unconditionally):  Concur with comments from SOIS AD -- better specificity regarding SCID and Maximum Packet Length and any other parameters that cannot take negative values would be good. Understood that in practice these would not be interpreted as a negative numbers but it does not hurt to be as clear as possible.  

     Tomaso de Cola (Approve with Conditions):  ​In my understanding, the main change to the specification is the introduction of the VC packet service, for which a dedicated section detailing the procedures and also a related functional architecture is provided. Likewise, also the NPICS is updated by adding two items to the specific VC packet service. As such, I'd have expected to see interoperability testing to verify the consistency of the specification and as such an updated version of the yellow prepared once ago for the first release of the USLP BB. Can you please clarify why it is not the case here? 

     Jonathan Wilmot (Approve Unconditionally):  Just a comment from a software engineer, standards should be more exact on data types in all CCSDS documents.  For example "Maximum Packet Length"and SCID are unsigned integers, not integers,  The 16 bit SCID range is 0 to 65535 not -32768 to +32767


Total Respondents:  7

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-2024-04-002 Approval to release CCSDS 311.0-P-1.1, Reference Architecture for Space Data Systems (Pink Book, Issue 1.1) for CCSDS Agency review

Results of CESG poll beginning 28 April 2024 and ending 17 May 2024:

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

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

     Erik Barkley (Approve with Conditions):  1) There are about 90 uses of the term "RASDS++" in the document and about 140 uses of the term "RASDS" (without "++").  There does not seem to be any indication in the book if there is to be inferred singificance when one term is used vs another.  I suspect not, and so would suggest simply introducing this as  RASDS V 2.0 and then just uniformly refer to this as RASDS rather than switching terms back and forth. 

2) figure 3 -3 -- the arrow defintions appear to be inherited from UML rather than derived -- there is not explanation offered as to what the derived properties are.  As such I recommend that this be stated as inherited, not derived. 

     Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions):  Tom, excellent job with lengthy & challenging input.  There are a few typos, as follows:

Sec 2, pg - all, fix page numbers, they should read 2-1, 2-2…. The first page is just numbered “8”.
Sec 2.2, pg 8, remove highlight on text 5.5.4.
Sec 4, pg 4-1, change title to just “Enterprise Viewpoint”
Sec 5.4.2.2, pg 5-3, Fig 5-2, White background on arrows obscures underlying figure elements
Sec 9.9, pg 9-15, Fig 9-9, White background on arrows obscures underlying figure elements

     Tomaso de Cola (Approve with Conditions):  ​Just two minor points:

1) Figure 5-2 should be enhanced (similar comment from Peter)

2) table 9-1 mentions DTN layer with 'BPv7' between brackets: I'd simply point to Bundle Protocol still with 'BPv7' in brackets. Then as to the description, it emphasises on the routing part. I'd generally point to the store-carry-forward paradigm.

3) still in table 9-1, there is the pointer to the optical physical item, why not including also the C&S? The table mentioned in the previous rows the TM/TC C&S (RF part), so that I see the inclusion of the optical one worth for the sake of the completeness. 


Total Respondents:  5

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

     MOIMS



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

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