[CESG] FW: [Cesg-all] Results of recent CESG polls
Shames, Peter M (313B)
peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov
Thu Aug 29 13:22:49 EDT 2013
Ciao Mario,
I finally had the time on the return flight from my summer vacation to
review the rest of the document. I am attaching the final version here.
As noted in the review I sent earlier I think that there are still a
number of significant ambiguities and confusing sections in this draft
Blue Book docment that must be addressed before it goes out for agency
review. I'll work with you and your team to help get them resolved.
Since I imagine that you will want to use this document as a pattern for
future technology binding documents it would be god to get it right this
first time.
Cheers, Peter
On 8/29/13 8:33 AM, "CCSDS Secretariat" <tomg at aiaa.org> wrote:
>CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2013-08-001
>Approval to release CCSDS
>652.1-P-1.1, Requirements for Bodies Providing
>Audit and Certification of Candidate Trustworthy
>Digital Repositories (Pink Book, Issue 1) for CCSDS Agency review
>Results of CESG poll beginning 6 August 2013 and ending 20 August 2013:
>
> Abstain: 2 (50%) (Taylor, Calzolari)
> Approve Unconditionally: 1 (25%) (Peccia)
> Approve with Conditions: 1 (25%) (Shames)
> Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)
>
>CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:
>
> Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions): I
>approve this revision, but do note that there
>were no change bars in the Pink Book. Thus it is
>rather a pain to try and see just what has been changed.
>
>I would much prefer for any document that has
>been cycled through CESG review for it to include
>change bars so we can see what has, in fact, been
>changed. IMHO the change bars do not need to be
>in the version sent out for agency review.
>
> Nestor Peccia (Approve Unconditionally): I concur with Peter's
>comments
>
>
>Total Respondents: 4
>
>No response was received from the following Area(s):
>
> CSS
> SIS
>
>SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with Conditions
>PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate CMC poll
>
>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2013-08-002
>Approval of Historical status for CCSDS A01.2-Y,
>CCSDS Operating Plan for Standards Development
>Results of CESG poll beginning 6 August 2013 and ending 20 August 2013:
>
> Abstain: 0 (0%)
> Approve Unconditionally: 6 (100%) (Shames,
>Peccia, Barkley, Taylor, Calzolari, Moury)
> Approve with Conditions: 0 (0%)
> Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)
>
>Total Respondents: 6
>
>No response was received from the following Area(s):
>
> SIS
>
>SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved Unconditionally
>PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate CMC poll
>
>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2013-08-003
>Approval of Historical status for CCSDS
>A30.0-G-3, CCSDS Glossary (Green Book, Issue 3, July 1997)
>Results of CESG poll beginning 6 August 2013 and ending 20 August 2013:
>
> Abstain: 0 (0%)
> Approve Unconditionally: 6 (100%) (Shames,
>Peccia, Barkley, Taylor, Calzolari, Moury)
> Approve with Conditions: 0 (0%)
> Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)
>
>Total Respondents: 6
>
>No response was received from the following Area(s):
>
> SIS
>
>SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved Unconditionally
>PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate CMC poll
>
>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2013-08-004
>Approval to release CCSDS 524.1-R-1, Mission
>Operations Message Abstraction Layer‹Space Packet
>Binding (Red Book, Issue 1) for CCSDS Agency review
>Results of CESG poll beginning 13 August 2013 and ending 27 August 2013:
>
> Abstain: 0 (0%)
> Approve Unconditionally: 3 (60%) (Peccia, Moury, Scott)
> Approve with Conditions: 2 (40%) (Shames, Barkley)
> Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)
>
>CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:
>
> Peter Shames (Approve with
>Conditions): This document has been
>significantly improved by an extensive set of
>edits. This has made the document much more
>readable and more easily understood. These
>edits, however, have introduced some new issues
>that really must be resolved before the document
>should be released for public review.
>
>The attached review version has been commented on
>through page 3-10. Since I am on vacation there
>has just not been the time to complete the
>review. As a result I am submitting this now for
>WG review. I will be traveling home tomorrow and
>during that cross country flight will complete
>the review. You will have the final inputs by COB Wed, 28 August.
>
> Erik Barkley (Approve with Conditions): 1)
>Section 2.4.2 states that configuration mapping
>requires a configuration service and/or directory
>service be present. However the normative
>section of the document has no such
>requirement. Please ensure that this is consistent.
>
>2) The mapping requires the same APIDs to be used
>in mapping from MAL URI TO, UR FROM fields. Does
>this work for the sub/pub interaction pattern? --
>is the assumption then that all subscribers will
>have to understand the same set of APIDs? My
>understanding as that missions may define APIDs
>to suit their own needs and do not necessarily
>coordinate the same definitions. It seems that
>either this may not really work for real-world
>implementation or that shall statements
>addressing pub/sub with APIDs needs to be added. Please clarify.
>
>3) Perhaps not a condition that can be resolved
>directly by the WG, but it does seem important to
>address from an overall CCSDS perspective: SPP
>is itself somewhat abstract, relying on the
>notion of a Logical Data Path (LDP) to route data
>over one or more sub networks. Further, CCSDS
>has defined both AMS and MTS (a specialization of
>AMS). So, in effect, is true inter-operation
>achieved with this binding book? I will note
>that, as an example, in section 2.4, the
>definition of QOS is left rather ambiguous --
>"...depends on the capabilities of the underlying
>layer to convey space packets". Okay, and that
>would be? AMS? MTS? If AMS/MTS are in fact under
>the SPP in figure 2-3, then isn't MAL really
>needing to map/bind to these layers as well? At
>a minimum, perhaps it would be worthwhile to
>consider figure 2-3 with AMS/MTS underneath
>it and see how this works. While it is true
>that, technically, this is out of scope of this
>book, I believe such an action may in fact better
>inform what a true interoperable binding may need
>to be. At minimum this should help prepare the
>WG to answer questions from implementations teams
>as to how all this fits together.
>
>
>Total Respondents: 5
>
>No response was received from the following Area(s):
>
> SOIS
>
>SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with Conditions
>PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate
>CMC poll after conditions have been addressed
>
>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 524x1r02_CESG_Approval-ps1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1037546 bytes
Desc: 524x1r02_CESG_Approval-ps1.pdf
Url : http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20130829/398872a3/524x1r02_CESG_Approval-ps1-0001.pdf
More information about the CESG
mailing list