[Cesg-all] Results of CESG Polls closing 27 January 2025

[CCSDS Secretariat]

CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2025-01-002 Approval to publish CCSDS 142.0-B-2, Non-Coherent Optical Communications Coding and Synchronization (Blue Book, Issue 2)

Results of CESG poll beginning 6 January 2025 and ending 27 January 2025:

                 Abstain:  1 (25%) (Singh)
 Approve Unconditionally:  1 (25%) (Aguilar Sanchez)
 Approve with Conditions:  2 (50%) (Barkley, Cola)
 Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)  

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

     Erik Barkley (Approve with Conditions):  ​1) Section 6.2: Please ensure that the terms for the managed parameters are well defined. For example, Table 6-2, Repeat factor lists the term "T" with no definition (it is difficult to search the document for "T" to find a definition).  Also, for this parameter the upper bound for w (which is also not defined) includes the term T x 10 x 10**9  -- why is this not more simply written T x 10**10 ?  It seems like something is missing?  Perhaps an example of a Repeat factor list written out could be provided? Rationale: management of optical comm systems may very well fall to those with non-optical communications expertise; having clear as possible definitions of the managed parameters will help those tasked with implementing management systems involving optical communications.

     Tomaso de Cola (Approve with Conditions):  ​The note from Jon Hamkins clarifies quite well how interoperability testing should be intented for this book. Nevertheless I have some doubts/remarks about the purpose of the conducted verification process, since some of the items included in the NPICS section do not seem to be considered in the prototype testing, such as ASM, slicing, etc. It should be clarified why these are left out in order to make the yellow paper more consistent with what provided in the red book.


Total Respondents:  4

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

     SEA
     MOIMS



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

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

CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2025-01-004 Approval to publish CCSDS 734.20-O-1, CCSDS Bundle Protocol Version 7 Specification (Orange Book, Issue 1)

Results of CESG poll beginning 6 January 2025 and ending 27 January 2025:

                 Abstain:  0 (0%)  
 Approve Unconditionally:  3 (75%) (Barkley, Cola, Singh)
 Approve with Conditions:  1 (25%) (Aguilar Sanchez)
 Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)  

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

     Erik Barkley (Approve Unconditionally):  Let me emphasize this is not a condition.  I will note that CESG may wish to discuss how to properly track the addtion of "orange" extenstions into "blue" registries -- the organge book here indicates new fields for the SANA SS&A registry.  That's fine, but as an "experimental" recommendation, is the new information also considered "experimental"?  (Note that there has never been a CCSDS data management policy developed, and I think this is another example of why a data management policy is needed).

     Ignacio Aguilar Sanchez (Approve with Conditions):  Condition 1. On subsection 2.2, second paragraph it is mentioned that a bundle endpoint can have zero bundle nodes. Can you explain why and eventually document the answer in an approprite place of the document?

Condition 2. On the same paragraph referred to above, the notion of 'anonymous' bundles is mentioned. Can you explain why such bundles are needed and what is their purpose? Again please document the answer in an appropriate place of the document.

Condition 3. On subsection 2.4, the services not supported by this specification are stated. The paragraph underneath points to reliable CLAs and/or application-level reliability mechanism to improve reliability. Does reliability imply the provision of services a), b) and c) mentioned above? Please confirm.

Condition 4. Sentence in clause 3.2.2 is not understood. Is the purpose to deny only or to support only bundles with dtn:none? Depending on the answer there might be a typo on the verb used in the sentence or perhaps a rephrase may be needed. Note that I am not a native English speaker.

     Simon Singh (Approve Unconditionally):  This is being published to meet the requrements of LunaNet community. However, it does requre some corrections. My understanding is that these corrections can be provided as Errata Sheets and that LunaNet community has agreed to it. Alternative would be to correct the document before publishing it. SIS can decide the best way forward. 

​This is revision of my earlier vote, although the approval rating has not changed.

This is being published to meet the requrements of LunaNet community. However, it does requre some corrections, provided as comments in the attached document. LunaNet community has been provided with a draft copy of the document, i.e. the version which is the subject of this poll. Recommendation is that attached comments should be addressed in the publication of the Orange Book. 


Total Respondents:  4

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

     SEA
     MOIMS
     SOIS



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

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