[CESG] [Cesg-all] Results of CESG Poll closing 24 August 2016, attachment

David Giaretta david at giaretta.org
Sun Aug 28 06:51:48 UTC 2016

Hi PeterI've passed this on to the book editor.RegardsDavid

Sent from my Samsung device

-------- Original message --------
From: "Shames, Peter M (312B)" <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov> 
Date: 28/08/2016  02:01  (GMT+00:00) 
To: David Giaretta <david at giaretta.org> 
Cc: CCSDS Secretariat <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>, CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org> 
Subject: Re: [Cesg-all] Results of CESG Poll closing 24 August 2016, attachment 

This time with correct address & attachment.

Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>

Date: Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 12:02 PM

To: David Giaretta <D.L.Giaretta at rl.ac.uk>

Cc: Tom Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>, CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>

Subject: Re: [Cesg-all] Results of CESG Poll closing 24 August 2016


Dear David,
My apologies for not getting this response to you in time for it to be included in the CESG results.  Since it is late you are free to ignore it, but I am sending it along because I think
 it contains information that you and your WG may find valuable.  Do with it what you will.
The document, overall, appears to be a quite good piece of work.  It is extensive and comprehensive and should be of value to users trying to implement the PAIS spec.
In reading through it I did find a number of places, particularly in the introductory sections, where I think things could have been more clearly stated.  For example, the connections between
 the objects in figures 3-1, -2, and -3 seem to be rather loosely specified.  Objects and related object types appear with no stated relationships.  A class diagram for that might provide useful.  Figures 3-5 and 3-6 could appear earlier in the chapter.  Colors
 are used in these figures, and they appear to have some meaning, but the semantics associated with them, if they are meaningful, are nowhere stated.
Since a part of this document is related to XML, and CCSDS XML schema are stored in the SANA, which is mentioned, a reference to the SANA really should be included.  Furthermore, there
 are a number of items referenced in this document, such as producer IDs, source IDs, and the like which really should be leveraging the available registries in the SANA.  These are all described in the recently published Registry Management Policy (CCSDS 313.1-Y-1)
 and the related Procedure for SANA Registry Specification, a guideline for WGs, titled CCSDS 313.2-Y-1.  The documents have been in circulation within the CESG for a year or more and they were published a few months ago.  In order to move all CCSDS documents
 into compliance all newly published documents are expected to adopt these features.
My suggestion is that you consider rectifying these issues before sending the document on for CMC approval.
Best regards, Peter

CESG-All <cesg-all-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> on behalf of Tom Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>

Date: Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 1:01 PM

To: CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG All <cesg-all at mailman.ccsds.org>

Subject: [Cesg-all] Results of CESG Poll closing 24 August 2016


CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2016-08-001 

Approval to publish CCSDS 651.2-G-1, 

Producer-Archive Interface Specification (PAIS)—A 

Tutorial (Green Book, Issue 1)

Results of CESG poll beginning 10 August 2016 and ending 24 August 2016:


                  Abstain:  1 (14.29%) (Calzolari)

  Approve Unconditionally:  5 (71.43%) (Merri, Behal, Scott, Cola, Barton)

  Approve with Conditions:  1 (14.29%) (Barkley)

  Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)




Erik Barkley (Approve with Conditions): 1) Minor 

editorial condition: In the acronyms section 

normalize font for the PDI -- it is in bold font, 

while all other acroynms are in regular font.



*Not* conditions -- only a general longer-term consideration:

a) Consider registering the schema namespace 

("urn:ccsds:schema:pais:1") in SANA



Total Respondents: 7

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






CMC poll after conditions have been addressed


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




CESG-All mailing list

CESG-All at mailman.ccsds.org



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20160828/02742045/attachment.html>

More information about the CESG mailing list