[CESG] Result of CESG-P-2017-02-004
CCSDS Secretariat
thomas.gannett at tgannett.net
Tue Sep 12 20:23:38 UTC 2017
Dear CESG members,
Conditions for the approval of CESG-P-2017-02-004
Approval to release CCSDS 524.3-R-1, Mission
Operations--Message Abstraction Layer Binding to
HTTP Transport and XML Encoding (Red Book, Issue
1) for CCSDS Agency review have been addressed to
the satisfaction of the ADs who voted to approve
with conditions. The Secretariat will now proceed with CMC polling.
>CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2017-02-004
>Approval to release CCSDS 524.3-R-1, Mission
>OperationsMessage Abstraction Layer Binding to
>HTTP Transport and XML Encoding (Red Book, Issue 1) for CCSDS Agency review
>Results of CESG poll beginning 18 February 2017 and ending 3 March 2017:
>
> Abstain: 1 (14.29%) (Calzolari)
> Approve Unconditionally: 3 (42.86%) (Merri, Behal, Wilmot)
> Approve with Conditions: 3 (42.86%) (Barkley, Shames, Burleigh)
> Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)
>
>CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:
>
>Erik Barkley (Approve with Conditions): 1)
>namespace in section 5.2 needs to be brought
>into conformance with RFC7738 which was filed in
>2016 by CCSDS with IANA and is the controlling document for CCSDS namespaces
>
>2) registration of URI scheme "malhttp" is, in
>all likelyhood incorrectly indicated as being
>with SANA. To the best of my knoweldge URI
>schemes are registred with IANA. Please check
>and update as appropriate (ie., removal from
>SANA consideration, and perhaps RFC 4395 applies here).
>
>Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions): There
>are many issues with this document. These are
>all marked in the attached PDF and the major
>ones are documented in the four PIDs.
>
>Scott Burleigh (Approve with Conditions): Since,
>according to section 1.1 of this document, the
>MAL binding to HTTP and the XML encoding for MAL
>data types are mutually independent, I do not
>understand why they are being published together
>as a single book. Wouldn't the implementation,
>utilization, infusion, and maintenance of both
>standards be easier if they were published as
>separate documents? I can appreciate that
>publishing a single book might be
>administratively simpler, but I don't think
>that's a very good rationale. If there is a
>sound technical argument for combining these two
>standards in a single Blue Book I will gladly withdraw this condition.
>
>In any event, I think it would be a profound
>service to the reader to state in section 1.1
>that the MAL binding pertains only to the MAL
>message header and the XML encoding pertains
>only to the MAL message body, as explained in
>the fourth paragraph of section 2.1. (If this is
>not true, then I think section 2.1 needs revision.)
>
>Finally, is it the case that MAL can be bound to
>HTTP running over UDP as an alternative to TCP?
>Section 2.4.1 seems to indicate that it is,
>while section 3.4.1(2) and Table 3-5 indicate that it is not.
>
>Gian Paolo Calzolari (Abstain): Editorial comments:
>
>Ref. [5], [6], [8] are never called.
>
>Ref. [4] only call4ed in non nomative sections,
>then it should be informative reference.
>
>
>Total Respondents: 7
>All Areas responded to this question.
>
>SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with Conditions
>PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate
>CMC poll after conditions have been addressed
>
>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
From: Sam Cooper [mailto:sam at brightascension.com]
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 4:09 AM
To: Mario Merri; Dan Smith
Cc: Brigitte Behal; Thomas Gannett
Subject: Fwd: Re: CESG review of MAL HTTP/XML binding
Dear Mario,
In light of all conditions being resolved, please
find the link below for the updated red book document for agency review:
<https://cwe.ccsds.org/moims/docs/MOIMS-SMandC/Draft%20Documents/MO%20MAL%20Binding%20to%20HTTP(s)%20Transport%20and%20XML%20Encoding/524x3r0_CESG_Approval_Updated_3.doc>https://cwe.ccsds.org/moims/docs/MOIMS-SMandC/Draft%20Documents/MO%20MAL%20Binding%20to%20HTTP(s)%20Transport%20and%20XML%20Encoding/524x3r0_CESG_Approval_Updated_3.doc
Best regards,
Sam.
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:
Re: CESG review of MAL HTTP/XML binding
Date:
Wed, 6 Sep 2017 15:03:53 +0000
From:
Shames, Peter M (312B)
<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov><peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
To:
Sam Cooper
<mailto:sam at brightascension.com><sam at brightascension.com>,
Mario Merri
<mailto:Mario.Merri at esa.int><Mario.Merri at esa.int>,
Dan Smith <mailto:danford.s.smith at nasa.gov><danford.s.smith at nasa.gov>
Thanks Sam.
Peter
From: Sam Cooper <mailto:sam at brightascension.com><sam at brightascension.com>
Date: Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 1:46 AM
To: Peter Shames
<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov><peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>,
Mario Merri
<mailto:Mario.Merri at esa.int><Mario.Merri at esa.int>,
Dan Smith <mailto:danford.s.smith at nasa.gov><danford.s.smith at nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: CESG review of MAL HTTP/XML binding
Hi Peter,
Brilliant, thank you, and completely understand your priority scheme! :-)
Fixed those issues:
1) For the NULL fields, there are no NULL fields
in the header in this version, it was left over
from a previous version of the document.
2) For the CRC comment, as I mentioned when you
first raised that concern all that time ago,
there isn't a CRC in HTTP and I suspect it got
left over from the MAL SPP book it was based on.
So nothing being missed out or ignore, just a cut and paste error.
3) Good spot, fixed!
Many thanks again for your time Peter.
Cheers,
Sam.
On 05/09/2017 22:51, Shames, Peter M (312B) wrote:
Hi Sam,
Sorry for the delay. I was off on a vacation,
visiting with my grandkids. That took priority.
I think that you may have been a little
over-zealous in your pruning. See comments on
pgs 2-7 and 2-8. See also pg B-6 for another issue.
These are all easy to fix.
Otherwise this seems OK to me now.
Thanks, Peter
From: Sam Cooper <mailto:sam at brightascension.com><sam at brightascension.com>
Date: Monday, September 4, 2017 at 7:05 AM
To: Peter Shames
<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov><peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>,
Mario Merri
<mailto:Mario.Merri at esa.int><Mario.Merri at esa.int>,
Dan Smith <mailto:danford.s.smith at nasa.gov><danford.s.smith at nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: CESG review of MAL HTTP/XML binding
Hi Peter,
Do you have any further comments to make or shall
I assume that everything is as you expected to see after our get together?
Regards,
Sam.
On 17/08/2017 13:59, Sam Cooper wrote:
Dear Peter,
Sorry for the very long delay in processing your
CESG RIDs on the HTTP/XML mapping. Thanks for
your time in San Antonio going through them with me.
I've attached the updated version for you to
check before I send it onwards for the Agency
review, could you let me know if everything is now ok please?
Best regards,
Sam.
From: Sam Cooper [mailto:sam at brightascension.com]
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 4:03 AM
To: Burleigh, Scott C (312B); Barkley, Erik J (3970)
Cc: Mario Merri; Thomas Gannett
Subject: Re: CESG review of MAL HTTP/XML binding
Many thanks Scott.
Cheers,
Sam.
On 08/09/2017 16:21, Burleigh, Scott C (312B) wrote:
Hi, Sam. Yes, that works, and my conditions are
satisfied. I still think it would be better
practice to separate the two specifications into
two books that advance together and reference
each other, but I acknowledge that we are not going in that direction.
Scott
From: Sam Cooper
[<mailto:sam at brightascension.com>mailto:sam at brightascension.com]
Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 6:14 AM
To: Burleigh, Scott C (312B)
<mailto:scott.c.burleigh at jpl.nasa.gov><scott.c.burleigh at jpl.nasa.gov>;
Barkley, Erik J (3970)
<mailto:erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov><erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: CESG review of MAL HTTP/XML binding
Hi Scott,
The two parts are in a single book simply because
we feel that the XML encoding is the encoding of
choice when using the HTTP binding. However, as
you correctly surmised they are independent of
each other. So, I propose to add the following
statement to the end of section 1.1:
The binding from the MAL to HTTP pertains only to
the MAL message header and message exchange and
the XML encoding pertains only to the encoding of
the MAL message body, see section 2.4.1 for more specific details on this.
Does this work?
Cheers,
Sam.
On 07/09/2017 22:43, Burleigh, Scott C (312B) wrote:
Hi, Sam. I see that you have resolved the
ambiguity about the use of UDP for MAL/HTTP, but
I have not yet been able to find where you either
[a] give a technical reason why this should not
instead be two books (one for MAL binding to HTTP
and one for MAL message body encoding in XML),
since those two functions are mutually
independent, or [b] state very early on that the
MAL binding pertains only to the MAL message
header and the XML encoding pertains only to the
MAL message body. Sorry, I am not trying to be
difficult, but I really think the reader deserves some additional clarity here.
Scott
From: Sam Cooper
[<mailto:sam at brightascension.com>mailto:sam at brightascension.com]
Sent: Monday, September 4, 2017 2:09 AM
To: Burleigh, Scott C (312B)
<mailto:scott.c.burleigh at jpl.nasa.gov><scott.c.burleigh at jpl.nasa.gov>;
Barkley, Erik J (3970)
<mailto:erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov><erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>
Subject: CESG review of MAL HTTP/XML binding
DearAll,
Sorry for the very long delay in processing your
CESG RIDs on the HTTP/XML mapping.
I've attached the updated version for you to
check before I send it onwards for the Agency
review, could you let me know if everything is now ok please?
Best regards,
Sam.
From: Barkley, Erik J (3970) [mailto:erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov]
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2017 4:59 PM
To: Sam Cooper; Burleigh, Scott C (312B)
Cc: Mario Merri; Secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org;
Tom Gannett (thomas.gannett at tgannett.net)
Subject: RE: CESG review of MAL HTTP/XML binding
Sam,
Okay, given that the URI scheme is of limited
applicability (never seen outside of an MO aware
system as you note) then SANA registration is
appropriate. I consider my conditions to be
retired. I am copying the CCSDS secretariat for cognizance.
Best regards,
-Erik
From: Sam Cooper
[<mailto:sam at brightascension.com>mailto:sam at brightascension.com]
Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 6:15 AM
To: Barkley, Erik J (3970)
<<mailto:erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>;
Burleigh, Scott C (312B)
<<mailto:scott.c.burleigh at jpl.nasa.gov>scott.c.burleigh at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: Mario Merri <<mailto:Mario.Merri at esa.int>Mario.Merri at esa.int>
Subject: Re: CESG review of MAL HTTP/XML binding
Hi Erik,
We discussed your second condition during the
technical meeting in San Antonio. The conclusion
the group came to was that we did not feel that
there was a need to register the URI scheme with
IANA as it would never be seen outside of an MO
aware system and therefore the involvement of
IANA was an extra complexity/overhead that we wanted to avoid.
The SANA statement is to update a table we have
in SANA that links our URI schemes to the relevant book number.
I hope this make sense!
Cheers,
Sam.
On 07/09/2017 19:24, Barkley, Erik J (3970) wrote:
Sam,
Thanks for sending the update. Certainly my
first condition is addressed use of a namespace
in conformance with RFC 7738 (CCSDS URI). The update looks just fine.
My second condition stated registration of URI
scheme "malhttp" is, in all likelyhood
incorrectly indicated as being with SANA. To the
best of my knoweldge URI schemes are registred
with IANA. Please check and update as
appropriate (ie., removal from SANA
consideration, and perhaps RFC 4395 applies here).
What I find in the updated recommendation is:
3.4.4 The scheme name malhttp shall
be added to the SANA registry MAL Binding URI
Scheme Name and shall refer to the Mission
Operations HTTP Transport and XML Encoding document CCSDS 524.3-R-0
I am curious, has the question of URI Scheme
registration been looked at? I dont recall any
discussion/email along these lines. Any further
information you can supply will be appreciated.
Best regards,
-Erik
From: Sam Cooper
[<mailto:sam at brightascension.com>mailto:sam at brightascension.com]
Sent: Monday, September 4, 2017 2:09 AM
To: Burleigh, Scott C (312B)
<mailto:scott.c.burleigh at jpl.nasa.gov><scott.c.burleigh at jpl.nasa.gov>;
Barkley, Erik J (3970)
<mailto:erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov><erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>
Subject: CESG review of MAL HTTP/XML binding
DearAll,
Sorry for the very long delay in processing your
CESG RIDs on the HTTP/XML mapping.
I've attached the updated version for you to
check before I send it onwards for the Agency
review, could you let me know if everything is now ok please?
Best regards,
Sam.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20170912/a9d1a2bd/attachment.html>
More information about the CESG
mailing list