[CESG] Re: [Cesg-all] Results of CESG Polls closing 21 January 2016
Scott, Keith L.
kscott at mitre.org
Fri Feb 5 13:38:57 UTC 2016
Peter,
The status on the ‘duplicative of the CCSDS Org & Proc. Doc.’ RIDS is still ‘reject’, correct? I really think it’s unwise for these requirements to be stated in both the Organization and Procedures document and the Registry Management Policy document. While the RMP should certainly contain the rules for managing the registry, it seems odd for it to contain requirements such as:
3.3.1.1.12 A CCSDS Member may act as the sponsor for one or more Associate Organizations in its country.
[OK, and looking at this one again now, why not ‘zero or more’?]
The RMP isn’t where I’d go to look for such a requirement, and having the requirement in both the RMP and the Org & Procs document seems like it’s just begging for the two requirements (or one of the others in this category) to become mis-aligned between the two.
Also, if the wording of the corresponding requirements between the two documents is not exactly the same, which wins?
Might we be able to reference the relevant O&P requirements from notes in the RMP document? That would allow the RMP document to list all the requirements relevant to registries while avoiding the issue of duplicative requirements.
—keith
From: "kscott.mitre at gmail.com<mailto:kscott.mitre at gmail.com>" <kscott.mitre at gmail.com<mailto:kscott.mitre at gmail.com>>
Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 8:21 AM
To: "Scott, Keith L." <kscott at mitre.org<mailto:kscott at mitre.org>>
Subject: Fwd: FW: [Cesg-all] Results of CESG Polls closing 21 January 2016
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Scott, Keith L." <kscott at mitre.org<mailto:kscott at mitre.org>>
Date: Feb 1, 2016 8:50 PM
Subject: FW: [Cesg-all] Results of CESG Polls closing 21 January 2016
To: "kscott.mitre at gmail.com<mailto:kscott.mitre at gmail.com>" <kscott.mitre at gmail.com<mailto:kscott.mitre at gmail.com>>
Cc:
________________________________
From: Shames, Peter M (312B)
Sent: Monday, February 1, 2016 8:48:08 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)
To: Scott, Keith L.
Subject: FW: [Cesg-all] Results of CESG Polls closing 21 January 2016
Hi Keith,
Most of the RIDs on the 313x1y1 were pretty easy to disposition, except for the SIS ones. I found myself marking most of them “reject” and wanted to take a moment to explain why. Many of them made the point that requirements in this document, the RMP, were duplicative with the CCSDS Org & Proc doc. While I agree that the Org & Proc doc conains much of the same language it tends to do it in a prose style and to mix different topics in different places. It is also the case that some of the “requirements” that we operate by are not in the Org & Proc doc but instead appear only in the CCSDS web site.
The intent with this document was to put all of these requirements, the procedure for checking them off, and the description of how the results are managed, into one, structured, as concise as possible, document. This really contains policy, procedure, and design, all in one. We do not have this information anywhere else in CCSDS in this sort of compact form, and the Secretariat website guy, the CCSDS tech editor, the SANA operator, and other SSG people all had a strong hand in crafting it, reviewing it, and approving it before it went out for ider review.
There are a couple of points where the wording may be more confusing than it needs to be, having to do with the way that the Contact and Or registries are described. We could clean these up if strongly desired.
Given all of that would you accept the document more or less as it is, with the indicated changes?
Thanks, Peter
From: <cesg-all-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg-all-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>> on behalf of Tom Gannett <tomg at aiaa.org<mailto:tomg at aiaa.org>>
Date: Friday, January 22, 2016 at 1:15 PM
To: CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG All <cesg-all at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg-all at mailman.ccsds.org>>
Subject: [Cesg-all] Results of CESG Polls closing 21 January 2016
CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2015-12-003
Approval to publish CCSDS A02.1-Y-4 Cor. 2,
Corrigendum 1 to CCSDS A02.1-Y-4, Issued April 2014
Results of CESG poll beginning 18 December 2015 and ending 21 January 2016:
Abstain: 0 (0%)
Approve Unconditionally: 10 (100%) (Barkley,
Merri, Behal, Shames, Scott, Cola, Calzolari, Moury, Suess, Barton)
Approve with Conditions: 0 (0%)
Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)
Total Respondents: 10
All Areas responded to this question.
SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved Unconditionally
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate CMC poll
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2015-12-004
Approval to publish CCSDS 313.0-Y-2, Space
Assigned Numbers Authority (SANA)—Role,
Responsibilities, Policies, and Procedures Yellow Book, Issue 2)
Results of CESG poll beginning 18 December 2015 and ending 21 January 2016:
Abstain: 0 (0%)
Approve Unconditionally: 6 (75%) (Behal, Shames, Scott, Cola, Suess, Barton)
Approve with Conditions: 2 (25%) (Barkley, Merri)
Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:
Erik Barkley (Approve with Conditions): 1) From:
"Third Generation Project" To: "Third Generation
Partnership Project"; Rationale: Proper defintion of acronym per 3GPP website
2) Either a) from "registration authority" to
"review authority" or b) revise all existing SANA
registry to revise existing meta data
3) From: "SANA manages only the protocol
registries of the CCSDS," to some phrase that is
consistent with registry classifications in the
RMP. Rationale: The RMP does not formally define
"protocol registries" but defines, "enterprise",
"global", and "local/WG" classes of registries.
Use of RMP classification will help to reduce ambiguity.
4) From: "Programmatic access to the SANA
registries shall be provided via an HTTP/REST
query interface." to some sentence indicating the
HTTP Methods to be supported. Rationale:
Technically, REST is not a protocol, but rather a
style of utilization of HTTP. I suspect that a
"full REST"/Restful web-services capability is
not truly desired, at least not at this time.
"Full REST type capability" allows for HTTP
methods such PUT and POST. I suspect that
probably methods such as GET are really only
intended here. Suggest including a reference in
the document to RFC 2616 and restricting access
to those HTTP methods to be allowed for SANA.
5) From: "Expert Groups are not intended to
require significant resources nor meeting rooms
at bi-annual meetings" to some sort of allowance
for at least a meeting room. Rationale: it is
conceivable that an expert group will have to
meet face-to-face to resolve an issue and agency
budgets/allowance outside of the bi-annual meeting cycle are typically lacking.
6) Remove Annex A. Rationale: the list of
candidate registries is orthogonal to the roles
and responsibility defined herein and is properly identified in the RMP.
1
Mario Merri (Approve with Conditions): I suggest
to add in sec 3.16 also "backup system" or
something similar. Backup must be a mandatory functionality.
Total Respondents: 8
No response was received from the following Area(s):
SLS
SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with Conditions
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate
CMC poll after conditions have been addressed
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2015-12-005
Approval to publish CCSDS 313.1-Y-1, CCSDS SANA
Registry Management Policy (Yellow Book, Issue 1)
Results of CESG poll beginning 18 December 2015 and ending 21 January 2016:
Abstain: 0 (0%)
Approve Unconditionally: 4 (50%) (Shames, Cola, Suess, Barton)
Approve with Conditions: 4 (50%) (Barkley, Merri, Behal, Scott)
Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:
Erik Barkley (Approve with Conditions): Summary of conditions:
1) Minor editorial RIDs
2) Lack of purge policy
3) IOAG RF Assets registry appears to be
duplicative of Sites and Apertures registry in
contradiction to general policy of not having duplicative registries
Detailed conditions are in the attached file.
Mario Merri (Approve with Conditions): 3.4.6.5
Refers to a "CCSDS Common Schema" registries yet
no further reference is made to this or an explanation of what this is.
3.4.6.5 Refers to the use of the "CCSDS
Terminology Registry", it should be made clear
that this shall only be applied to new XML Schema
and only where that would not break
compatibility, or backward compatibility, with
existing relevant XML Schema. For example, a new
revision of a MOIMS Navigation XML Schema shall
not be required to adopt terms if that adoption
would break backwards compatibility with the previous revisions of the schema.
Bigette Behal (Approve with Conditions): The
process to take care of "obsolete" information in
the cross cutting registries should be clarified
(For instance when the "entity" that was the
source/maintainer of the information is no longer active)
Keith Scott (Approve with Conditions): See attached
Total Respondents: 8
No response was received from the following Area(s):
SLS
SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with Conditions
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate
CMC poll after conditions have been addressed
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2015-12-006
Approval to publish CCSDS 313.2-Y-1, Procedures
for SANA Registry Specification (Yellow Book, Issue 1)
Results of CESG poll beginning 18 December 2015 and ending 21 January 2016:
Abstain: 0 (0%)
Approve Unconditionally: 6 (75%) (Merri, Behal, Shames, Cola, Suess, Barton)
Approve with Conditions: 2 (25%) (Barkley, Scott)
Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:
Erik Barkley (Approve with Conditions): One
condition: From: "Registry Authority" To: "Review
Authority". Rationale: Registries currently
available via the SANA website do not list
Registry Authorities, but rather "Review
Authorities". The change makes the procedures and
SANA metadata extant consistent.
A suggestion: CESG verification criteria
guidelines for different classes of registries
(enterprise, global, etc.) will be useful.
A side note for CESG consideration: WGs are often
listed as the SANA Review authorities, however
WGs, are suppose to go out of existence once
their charter has been addressed; it might make
sense to indicate the area rather than the WG as
the review authority as Areas are constituted as standing bodies within CCSDS.
Keith Scott (Approve with Conditions): See attached.
Total Respondents: 8
No response was received from the following Area(s):
SLS
SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with Conditions
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate
CMC poll after conditions have been addressed
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2016-01-001
Approval to release CCSDS 401.0-P-25.1, Radio
Frequency and Modulation Systems—Part 1: Earth
Stations and Spacecraft (Red Sheets, Issue 25.1) for CCSDS Agency review
Results of CESG poll beginning 12 January 2016 and ending 21 January 2016:
Abstain: 2 (22.22%) (Merri, Behal)
Approve Unconditionally: 7 (77.78%) (Barkley,
Shames, Scott, Cola, Calzolari, Suess, Barton)
Approve with Conditions: 0 (0%)
Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)
Total Respondents: 9
All Areas responded to this question.
SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved Unconditionally
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate CMC poll
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2016-01-002
Approval to release CCSDS 766.1-P-1.1, Digital
Motion Imagery (Pink Sheets, Issue 1.1) for CCSDS Agency review
Results of CESG poll beginning 12 January 2016 and ending 21 January 2016:
Abstain: 1 (11.11%) (Behal)
Approve Unconditionally: 7 (77.78%) (Barkley,
Merri, Scott, Cola, Calzolari, Suess, Barton)
Approve with Conditions: 1 (11.11%) (Shames)
Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:
Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions): Glad to
see that JPEG2000 is now included.
However, I did not see an update of the
706.11-Y-0MIAYellowBookFinal test report from the
earlier Blue Book (which also seems to be
incorrectly numbered). Was this tested using the
same method as the other options and where is that documented?
Total Respondents: 9
All Areas responded to this question.
SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with Conditions
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate CMC poll
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20160205/a5c5c7b4/attachment.html>
More information about the CESG
mailing list