[CESG] Fw: [Cesg-all] Results of CESG polls closing 20 November 2012
Nestor.Peccia at esa.int
Nestor.Peccia at esa.int
Tue Feb 19 12:35:09 EST 2013
Another example of the lack of governance in the CESG polling process
Procedures TB shall be amended to have it
It will be a Bordeaux issue
ciao
nestor
----- Forwarded by Nestor Peccia/esoc/ESA on 19/02/2013 18:33 -----
From:
"Stuart Fowell" <Stuart.Fowell at scisys.co.uk>
To:
"Thomas Gannett" <tomg at aiaa.org>
Cc:
<chris.taylor at esa.int>, <nestor.peccia at esa.int>
Date:
19/02/2013 10:37
Subject:
FW: [Cesg-all] Results of CESG polls closing 20 November 2012
[attachment "871x0m0.1_CESG_Approval.doc" deleted by Nestor
Peccia/esoc/ESA]
[attachment "871x0m0_CESG_Approval-SEA.pdf" deleted by Nestor
Peccia/esoc/ESA]
Dear Tom,
Please find attached the new SOIS Device Access Service draft Magenta Book
(change tracked) following updates resulting from the CESG poll
?CESG-P-2012-11-004 Approval to publish CCSDS 871.0-M-1, Spacecraft
Onboard Interface Services?Device Access Service (Magenta Book, Issue 1)?.
If you can recall, no specific RIDs were raised by SEA, only a commented
document (also attached). I have repeatedly requested a response from the
SEA AD to indicate if he is satisfied that his comments have been
addressed, without success. Therefore the SOIS AD has determined that we
should now proceed to publication, without further delay.
By the way, the SIS AD comments were addressed during the poll (missing
RID response from previous Agency review).
Do we need another poll? I don?t think so given that SEA and SIS approved
with conditions (see above) and the remaining areas either approved
unconditionally or abstained.
Regards,
Stuart
__________________________________________________________________
Stuart Fowell
On-Board Software Architectures
Space Division
SCISYS UK Limited
T: +44 (0)117 916 5138
M: +44 (0)7715 750255
F: +44 (0)117 916 5299
E: stuart.fowell at scisys.co.uk
http://www.scisys.co.uk
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
From: Stuart Fowell
Sent: 12 February 2013 09:32
To: 'peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov'
Cc: 'TomG at aiaa.org'; 'chris.taylor at esa.int'; 'Nestor.Peccia at esa.int'
Subject: RE: [Cesg-all] Results of CESG polls closing 20 November 2012
Dear Peter,
One final attempt to get a response from you on our dispositions and
document updates from your RIDs.
If you have not responded by the end of Friday 15th February, the SOIS-APP
WG will assume implicit acceptance and we will proceed to request
publication.
Regards,
Stuart
From: Stuart Fowell
Sent: 22 January 2013 16:18
To: 'peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov'
Cc: 'TomG at aiaa.org'; 'chris.taylor at esa.int'; 'Nestor.Peccia at esa.int'
Subject: RE: [Cesg-all] Results of CESG polls closing 20 November 2012
Dear Peter,
Have you made any progress upon accepting (or not) that your specific
comments on the Device Access Service Magenta Book have been addressed?
This is holding up publication.
Regards,
Stuart
From: Stuart Fowell
Sent: 02 January 2013 17:00
To: 'peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov'
Cc: 'TomG at aiaa.org'; 'chris.taylor at esa.int'
Subject: FW: [Cesg-all] Results of CESG polls closing 20 November 2012
Dear Peter,
Attached is an updated 871.0-M-0 Word document that hopefully addresses
your specific comments (in the attached PDF document) raised in the poll
for publication of the earlier draft version.
Please let me know if these specific points are addressed.
Regards,
Stuart
From: cesg-all-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org [
mailto:cesg-all-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Gannett
Sent: 28 November 2012 15:24
To: cesg-all at mailman.ccsds.org
Subject: [Cesg-all] Results of CESG polls closing 20 November 2012
CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2012-11-002 Approval to release CCSDS
871.3-R-1, Spacecraft Onboard Interface Services?Device Enumeration
Service (Red Book, Issue 1) for CCSDS Agency review
Results of CESG poll beginning 6 November 2012 and ending 20 November
2012:
Abstain: 1 (16.67%) (Calzolari)
Approve Unconditionally: 3 (50%) (Peccia, Barkley, Taylor)
Approve with Conditions: 2 (33.33%) (Shames, Scott)
Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:
Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions): (See attached e-mail.)
Keith Scott (Approve with Conditions): Please see attached PIDS.
Total Respondents: 6
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-2012-11-003 Approval to release CCSDS
871.2-R-1, Spacecraft Onboard Interface Services?Device Virtualization
Service (Red Book, Issue 1) for CCSDS Agency review
Results of CESG poll beginning 6 November 2012 and ending 20 November
2012:
Abstain: 1 (16.67%) (Calzolari)
Approve Unconditionally: 2 (33.33%) (Peccia, Taylor)
Approve with Conditions: 3 (50%) (Shames, Barkley, Scott)
Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:
Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions): (See attached e-mail.)
Erik Barkley (Approve with Conditions): The discussion in section
2.2.3, Extensibility, re interfaces needs clarification. The diagram in
Figure 2-2 shows DVS with two interfaces: 1) to the application, 2) to
DAS. It is unclear which interface is being discussed but it seems like it
is the interface to the actual device. If so, is this not really the
interface from DAS to the device and not for DVS? If the discussion is
with regard to DVS/Application interface, then by definition, since this
is a standardization effort that is in fact standard, correct? Similarly
if the discussion with regard to the DVS/DAS interface, should this not be
standardized as this all SOIS "internal" so to speak? Please clarify.
Keith Scott (Approve with Conditions):
CESG POLL ITEM DISPOSITION (PID) INITIATION FORM
AREA PID NUMBER: 01
SUBMITTING AREA: Space Internetworking Services (SIS)
------------------------------------------------------------------
REVIEWER'S NAME: Keith Scott
E-MAIL ADDRESS: kscott at mitre.org
------------------------------------------------------------------
DOCUMENT NUMBER: CCSDS 871.2-R-0 Proposed Red Book, Issue 0
DOCUMENT NAME: Spacecraft Onboard Interface Services?Device
Virtualization Service
DATE ISSUED: November 2012
PAGE NUMBER: 3-2 PARAGRAPH NUMBER: 3.3.2
PID SHORT TITLE: Transaction identifier
------------------------------------------------------------------
DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED CHANGE: (Use From: "..." To "..." format)
I thought we'd agreed that the mechanism for matching an indication to a
particular request was part of the implementation and not part of the
service specification? I'm not adament about its inclusion or exclusion
but I think we should agree on ONE approach for all documents and stick to
it.
------------------------------------------------------------------
CATEGORY OF REQUESTED CHANGE: Editorial
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUPPORTING ANALYSIS:
------------------------------------------------------------------
DISPOSITION:
Total Respondents: 6
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-2012-11-004 Approval to publish CCSDS
871.0-M-1, Spacecraft Onboard Interface Services?Device Access Service
(Magenta Book, Issue 1)
Results of CESG poll beginning 6 November 2012 and ending 20 November
2012:
Abstain: 1 (16.67%) (Calzolari)
Approve Unconditionally: 3 (50%) (Peccia, Taylor, Scott)
Approve with Conditions: 2 (33.33%) (Shames, Barkley)
Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:
Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions): (See attached e-mail.)
Erik Barkley (Approve with Conditions):
19 November 2012: RID disposition supplied by SOIS DAD. Condition met.
15 November 2012: Please provide dispositions re RIDS DLR-1 and DLR-3. (No
dispositions for these RIDS were recorded for the polling material
provided to CESG.)
Total Respondents: 6
All Areas responded to this question.
SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with Conditions
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate CMC poll after conditions
have been addressed
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
(ATTACHED E-MAIL:)
From: "Shames, Peter M (313B)" <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
To: Tom Gannett <TomG at aiaa.org>
CC: "Hooke, Adrian J (9000)" <adrian.j.hooke at jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 16:30:01 -0500
Subject: Re: [CESG] CESG Poll Closure EXTENSION
Tom,
Here are my marked up CESG review editions. Each of these docs have some
notable issues. The Magenta Book (871x0m0) contains issues identified in
an earlier review that never got resolved. The worst of these is that it
says it is defining "protocols & PDUS" and then has two prominent chapters
for those topics that are completely empty. Furthermore, it introduces
concepts in the early sections that are not defined and not visble in the
diagrams that are referenced. There is a real disconnect between the text
and the diagrams in terminology.
I think those empty PDU chapters should be removed and the doc should
state that it is just defining an abstract service interface.
The other two docs suffer from some of the same "text is not the same as
figure" problems and have the same "this is really only an abstract
service interface" problems. Of the two the best is the DVS, 871x2, but
it does have some notable gaps. It does not ever really define in a clear
and simple way what a Device Virtualization Service is and it makes
assertions about providing a "flexible and extensible framework" that are
not substantiated by any features in the specifications. It, and the
other two, are vague about just what a MIB is and what it might contain,
yet managing such info, and mapping it among different servce entities,
seems to be a large part of what these services are all about.
The DES, 871x3, has all of these DAS and DVS problems and more. As a
surprise it shows, in figure 2-4, something that might actually be a model
for a MIB, but it does not identify it as such. If this is correct it is
very good news since that means that there is an example of a MIB that
could be used to good effect in the other books. However, it is also very
vaue on a number of topics. It says things like "interfaces and
algorithms are supposed to be integrated" and "it is assumed that
interactions are done via a Communication Management entity" (pg 2-2).
These sorts of "it is assumed" and "supposed to be" statements are way too
vague to appear in a standards document. Either there is a fully formed
vision or there isn't. This sounds like the latter.
Of even more concern in this DES document are the statements (pg 2-4) that
the DES "manipulates the configuration of the DVS and DAS". This sort of
"design by side-effect" was mostly abandoned in the 80's (if not earlier).
It has no business in a formal spec like this. And note that the DVS and
DAS, the other two specs in this set, make no mention of this
"manipulation" and there is no means defined to actually perform it. It
might be via the MIB, as a shared information set, but that is not
specified.
There is a similarly glib approach in sec 2.2.1 as to how "associated
applications" are signalled when devices are added and removed. There is
no method to associate applications with devices and there is no defined
means to do this signaling. Similarly, down in the section on the
provided service (3.1) there is not even a mention of this associated
application signal. It is stated in Sec 2.2.1 that such signals are to be
sent, but there is no requirement in the service (3.1) to send them.
Since all three of these are intended to work together I would recommend
that they be repaired before they are sent out as a set.
I would state that as "Approve with conditions."
Regards, Peter
From: Tom Gannett <tomg at aiaa.org>
Date: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 9:52 AM
To: Peter Shames < peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: Adrian Hooke < Adrian.J.Hooke at jpl.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: [CESG] CESG Poll Closure EXTENSION
Peter:
You won't be able to vote on the polls now that they are closed. If you
want to record votes, send them to me and I'll post them via Secretariat
Proxy.
Tom
At 08:25 PM 11/20/2012, Shames, Peter M (313B) wrote:
Just an FYI ? too slammed to do justice to the other open polls tonight.
Will file them tomorrow. Those SOIS docs need a careful review. I'm not
willing to just do a "approve unconditionally".
Peter
From: Tom Gannett <tomg at aiaa.org>
Date: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 1:23 PM
To: CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org >
Subject: [CESG] CESG Poll Closure EXTENSION
Dear CESG Members,
At the request of an Area Director, the closure date for the following
poll has been extended until 4 December 2012:
- CESG-P-2012-11-001 Approval to publish CCSDS 312.0-G-1, Reference
Architecture for Space Information Management (Green Book, Issue 1)
This poll can be accessed via the following link:
http://public.ccsds.org/sites/cwe/cesg/Polls/default.aspx
Thomas Gannett
+1 443 472 0805
Thomas Gannett
+1 443 472 0805
SCISYS UK Limited. Registered in England and Wales No. 4373530.
Registered Office: Methuen Park, Chippenham, Wiltshire SN14 0GB, UK.
Before printing, please think about the environment.
This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee or addressees only. The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in whole or in part) of its content is not permitted. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the sender.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20130219/1b00b3fd/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the CESG
mailing list