[CESG] CESG-P-2019-07-002 Approval to release CCSDS 133.0-P-1.1, Space Packet Protocol (Pink Book, Issue 1.1) for CCSDS Agency review

CCSDS Secretariat thomas.gannett at tgannett.net
Mon Aug 5 21:02:28 UTC 2019 

Dear CESG Members,

Conditions for approval of CCSDS 133.0-P-1.1, 
Space Packet Protocol (Pink Book, Issue 1.1) have 
been disposed to the satisfaction of the AD(s) 
who voted to approve with conditions. The 
Secretariat will now proceed with CMC polling to 
authorize release for Agency review.

>From: "Kazz, Greg J (US 312B)" <greg.j.kazz at jpl.nasa.gov>
>To: Thomas Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>
>CC: Erik Barkley <barkleye at pacbell.net>,
>         "Wilmot, Jonathan J. (GSFC-5820)"
>         <jonathan.j.wilmot at nasa.gov>,
>         "Shames, Peter M (US 312B)"
>         <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
>Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: Re: CESG-P-2019-07-002 Approval to release CCSDS
>  133.0-P-1.1, Space Packet Protocol (Pink Book, Issue 1.1) for CCSDS Agency
>  review
>Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2019 20:47:07 +0000
>
>Hi Tom,
>
>I am in agreement.
>Concerning Peter’s non-SANA related PIDs, see 
>attached proposed resolutions. Given the time 
>constraint, I recommend the agency review go 
>forward and we catch these others if needed during the review period.
>
>Thanks!
>Greg
>
>From: "Shames, Peter M (US 312B)" <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
>Date: Monday, August 5, 2019 at 1:23 PM
>To: Thomas Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>
>Cc: Greg Kazz <greg.j.kazz at jpl.nasa.gov>, Erik 
>Barkley <barkleye at pacbell.net>, "Wilmot, 
>Jonathan J. (GSFC-5820)" <jonathan.j.wilmot at nasa.gov>
>Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: Re: 
>CESG-P-2019-07-002 Approval to release CCSDS 
>133.0-P-1.1, Space Packet Protocol (Pink Book, 
>Issue 1.1) for CCSDS Agency review
>
>Tom,
>
>I concur with the proposed changes that Greg 
>supplied, modulo the adjustments I proposed for 
>clarity.  See attached.  I also think this meets Erik's PID.
>
>If Greg is in agreement then I am content.
>
>Also, I reviewed Jonathan's comments and think 
>that most of his issues are due to a conflation 
>of implementation choices with what is really 
>standardized.  That said, he also said " All of 
>these can wait until agency review is in 
>progress as these would be my comments during that review phase."
>
>I'll work with Jonathan and Greg, separately, to 
>try and bring this to closure.  I think we have 
>work to do to get to closure on the registry, in any event.
>
>Thanks, Peter
>
>
>
>
>From: Tom Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>
>Date: Monday, August 5, 2019 at 12:55 PM
>To: Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
>Cc: Greg Kazz <greg.j.kazz at jpl.nasa.gov>
>Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Re: CESG-P-2019-07-002 
>Approval to release CCSDS 133.0-P-1.1, Space 
>Packet Protocol (Pink Book, Issue 1.1) for CCSDS Agency review
>
>Peter: When you and Greg come to an 
>understanding please send me something stating 
>that your conditions are satisfied. —Tom
>
>
>Logothete, L.L.C.
>thomas.gannett at tgannett.net
>+1 443 472 0805
>
>From: Thomas Gannett [mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net]
>Sent: Monday, August 05, 2019 3:17 PM
>To: 'Kazz, Greg J (312B)'
>Cc: peter.shames at jpl.nasa.gov
>Subject: Re: CESG-P-2019-07-002 Approval to 
>release CCSDS 133.0-P-1.1, Space Packet Protocol 
>(Pink Book, Issue 1.1) for CCSDS Agency review
>
>Greg:
>
>I attempted to get all the conditions on the 
>CESG polls resolved before the polls closed, but 
>I overlooked Peter’s PIDs against SPP (attached).
>
>Can you please quickly (like, today) negotiate 
>dispositions with Peter? Because of the time 
>constraints for releasing the documents in time 
>to complete the reviews before the meetings, I 
>already started the CMC polls. —Tom



>From: "Wilmot, Jonathan J. (GSFC-5820)" <jonathan.j.wilmot at nasa.gov>
>To: Thomas Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>
>Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: CESG-P-2019-07-002 Approval to release CCSDS
>  133.0-P-1.1, Space Packet Protocol (Pink Book, Issue 1.1) for CCSDS Agency
>  review
>Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2019 13:05:06 +0000
>
>
>Tom,
>
>      My conditions to CESG-P-2019-07-002 
> Approval to release CCSDS 133.0-P-1.1, Space 
> Packet Protocol (Pink Book, Issue 1.1) are satisfied.
>My comments will be included as part of the 
>agency review process and dispositioned there.
>
>     Kind regards,
>
>              Jonathan
>
>Jonathan Wilmot
>NASA/GSFC
>CCSDS SOIS Area Director
>
>
>From: Thomas Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>
>Sent: Saturday, August 3, 2019 11:56 AM
>To: Wilmot, Jonathan J. (GSFC-5820) <jonathan.j.wilmot at nasa.gov>
>Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: CESG-P-2019-07-002 
>Approval to release CCSDS 133.0-P-1.1, Space 
>Packet Protocol (Pink Book, Issue 1.1) for CCSDS Agency review
>
>Jonathan:
>
>Concerning your conditions against 
>CESG-P-2019-07-002 Approval to release CCSDS 
>133.0-P-1.1, Space Packet Protocol (Pink Book, 
>Issue 1.1) for CCSDS Agency review:
>
>Since your concluding remark (“All of these can 
>wait until agency review is in progress as these 
>would be my comments during that review phase”) 
>suggests the conditions are not intended to 
>prevent the document from proceeding to review, 
>can you respond to this email indicating that, 
>since your conditions are being communicated to 
>the WG, they are satisfied with respect to the 
>poll itself (or something to that effect).
>
>Thanks,
>Tom




>From: "Barkley, Erik J (US 3970)" <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>
>To: "Shames, Peter M (US 312B)" <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>,
>         "Kazz, Greg J
>  (US 312B)" <greg.j.kazz at jpl.nasa.gov>,
>         Gian Paolo Calzolari
>         <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>,
>         "Wilmot, Jonathan J. (GSFC-5820)"
>         <jonathan.j.wilmot at nasa.gov>
>CC: Tom Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>
>Subject: RE: SANA Issues with the updated SPP document
>Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2019 20:33:26 +0000
>
>
>This is going in the right direction, and 
>including a write-up such as suggested by Peter 
>satisfies my condition.  However, please see 
>below for a suggestion on more focused on 
>capturing information that is needed in the 
>registry versus attempting to identify its structure.
>
>Best regards,
>-Erik
>
>A suggestion is to consider Peter’s editing as 
>starting point – I think it would be more to the 
>point tto just capture the information being 
>registered. So, for example rather than:
>
>[]
>
>Perhaps we could have something like this in the document:
>
>The information registered is:
>
>a)    Organization – the organization that is registering the secondary header
>NOTE –“ This should be the same as the name in the SANA Organizations registry
>
>b)    Point of Contact – the responsiible party 
>of the agency registering the particular secondary header
>NOTE – This This should one of the names found in the SANA Contacts registry
>
>etc.
>
>
>
>
>From: Shames, Peter M (US 312B) <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
>Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2019 07:49
>To: Kazz, Greg J (US 312B) 
><greg.j.kazz at jpl.nasa.gov>; Barkley, Erik J (US 
>3970) <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>; Gian Paolo 
>Calzolari <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>; 
>Wilmot, Jonathan J. (GSFC-5820) <jonathan.j.wilmot at nasa.gov>
>Cc: Tom Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>
>Subject: Re: SANA Issues with the updated SPP document
>
>Hi Greg,
>
>Please take a look at the attached edits.  I 
>think this is more like what is needed.  I added 
>Wilmot too, since his request was part of what 
>motivated this change to the SPP.
>
>Thanks, Peter
>
>
>From: Greg Kazz <<mailto:greg.j.kazz at jpl.nasa.gov>greg.j.kazz at jpl.nasa.gov>
>Date: Tuesday, July 30, 2019 at 6:57 PM
>To: Peter Shames 
><<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>, 
>Erik Barkley 
><<mailto:erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>, 
>Gian Paolo Calzolari 
><<mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>
>Cc: Tom Gannett 
><<mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>
>Subject: Re: SANA Issues with the updated SPP document
>
>Dear All,
>
>Please see the attached Word document.
>There is only one registry in SPP, i.e, the 
>Packet Secondary Header Extension Field.
>I put together the registry in the attachment. 
>Please let me know your thoughts. If sufficient, 
>I will email on to the SANA folks.
>
>Thanks!
>Greg
>
>From: "Shames, Peter M (US 312B)" 
><<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
>Date: Tuesday, July 30, 2019 at 3:23 PM
>To: Greg Kazz 
><<mailto:greg.j.kazz at jpl.nasa.gov>greg.j.kazz at jpl.nasa.gov>, 
>"Barkley, Erik J (US 3970)" 
><<mailto:erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>, 
>Gian Paolo Calzolari 
><<mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>
>Cc: Thomas Gannett 
><<mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>
>Subject: SANA Issues with the updated SPP document
>
>Dear Greg, Gippo, and Erik,
>
>You may not be aware of this, but during the 
>CESG poll both Erik and I, separately, 
>identified issues with the SANA Considerations 
>section in the updated SPP document, CCSDS 
>133.0-P-1.1.  The SANA section, as written, is 
>not an adequate description of the intended 
>registry.  Furthermore, it appears that no one 
>ever contacted the SANA Operator to review this 
>registry nor to develop a suitable 
>prototype.  Our CCSDS procedures, in the Org & 
>Proc doc, A02x1y4, call for following the SANA 
>Procedures in CCSDS 313.0-Y-2.  And that 
>document, and the Registry Management Policy, 
>both point to the CCSDS Working Group Procedures 
>for SANA Registry Specification, CCSDS 313.2-Y-1 
>as the guide to what a WG must do to create or modify a registry.
>
>What is blindingly clear is that these 
>procedures were not followed and we now have a 
>situation where a document that should be easily 
>cleared for review and publication is not ready, 
>the registry it calls for is not fully 
>specified, and there is no draft/candidate 
>registry, nor has the SANA Operator even been 
>contacted.   This all violates CCSDS procedures.
>
>We had a working meeting with a subset of the 
>SANA Steering Group today where this, along with 
>other topics, was addressed.  Tom Gannett was 
>also present and voiced concerns about how to 
>break this log-jam and allow the document to go 
>out for Agency review.  The following is what we agreed with.
>
>Would you please each indicate if you concur and we can proceed:
>
>1)      Modify the SANA Considerations section 
>of the SPP Pink Book to meet the minimum 
>required content: Registry name, short 
>description including purpose, abstract 
>structure of the registry (a simple, comma 
>separated, list of items will do), registration 
>rule, registry category and review authority.
>2)      Use the doc with this revised Annex B for the Agency Review.
>3)      Immediately contact the SANA Operator, 
>as called for in CCSDS 313.2-Y-1, Sec 2.3 and 
>3.2, to initiate the design and creation of a candidate registry.
>4)      Work with any other affected WG, or even 
>agencies, to make sure that the features defined 
>in this SPP secondary header format registry are 
>suitable and adequate to the task.
>5)      Complete this work to create a final 
>registry such that it may be reviewed prior to 
>the time that the final Pink Book is ready to go through approval to publish.
>
>If you agree please so indicate.  If not I guess 
>we have no recourse but to halt progress until steps 3-5 can be completed.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20190805/20bcd1ff/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 19925ff.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 169109 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20190805/20bcd1ff/attachment-0001.jpg>

More information about the CESG mailing list