[CESG] RID processing for SANA RMP and related documents, CESG Polls closing 21 January 2016

Sat Feb 6 21:52:02 UTC 2016

Dear CESG, CCSDS Secretariat, and other RID submitters,

Attached please find the edited versions of the three documents reviewed in CESG-P-2015-12-004, 005, and 006 and the dispositioned sets of RIDs.  All of the RIDs were dispositioned and the documents updated in accordance with the RIDs that were submitted.  Archove files with the RIDs are attached, as is an archive file with the updated figures for inclusion in the RMP, CCSDS 313.1-Y-1.  Aside from the required changes to the SANA registries, the only other outstanding issues are the following:

  1.  The update to Fig A-1 that I have asked Erik to deal with, since the issues are directly related to registry entries that CSS is directly responsible for.
  2.  The open question of whether the RMP should be the controlling document, since it does include requirements language for guidance that is otherwise stated in prose form in the CCSDS Org and Proc, or in the CCSDS website.

The last two documents that are attached are the RMP RIDs from David Berry (CRM) and the Glossary of terms for the RMP that he requested.  David caught a lot of typos and inconsistent use of terminology.  Thanks for the careful reading.

Most of the RIDs that were submitted were relatively minor technical issues, or terminology ambiguities, or editorial in nature.  Resolving them has lead to a much better set of documents, and the diligence of all the reviewers who responded is really appreciated.

Please review these RIDs and the proposed dispositions and send an acknowledgement if they are acceptable, or indicate if there are still further issues to be resolved.  I’d like to do this no later than 12 Feb 2016.  We need to get these documents into the CMC review queue and then start the work to actually re-engineer the SANA (and CCSDS website)registries.

Best regards, 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-2015-12-004
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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20160206/c74a75f3/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 313x0y11_CESG_RID updates.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 441111 bytes
Desc: 313x0y11_CESG_RID updates.pdf
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20160206/c74a75f3/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 313x1y0_CESG RID Updates.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1298697 bytes
Desc: 313x1y0_CESG RID Updates.pdf
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20160206/c74a75f3/attachment-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 313x1y0 CESG RIDs Integrated Disp.xls
Type: application/x-msexcel
Size: 54784 bytes
Desc: 313x1y0 CESG RIDs Integrated Disp.xls
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20160206/c74a75f3/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SIS RID 313x1y1 SEA disp Archive.zip
Type: application/zip
Size: 207881 bytes
Desc: SIS RID 313x1y1 SEA disp Archive.zip
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20160206/c74a75f3/attachment.zip>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 313x2y0_CESG_RID updates.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 320954 bytes
Desc: 313x2y0_CESG_RID updates.pdf
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20160206/c74a75f3/attachment-0002.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SIS RID 313x2y1 SEA disp Archive.zip
Type: application/zip
Size: 21976 bytes
Desc: SIS RID 313x2y1 SEA disp Archive.zip
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20160206/c74a75f3/attachment-0001.zip>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CRM-313.1-Y-0.1-SEA.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 41123 bytes
Desc: CRM-313.1-Y-0.1-SEA.docx
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20160206/c74a75f3/attachment.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CCSDS SANA RMP Glossary.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 114935 bytes
Desc: CCSDS SANA RMP Glossary.docx
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20160206/c74a75f3/attachment-0001.docx>