[CESG] In view of today's discussion: Materials for discussion during CESG WebEx on unresolved PIDs, Thursday, 2 Apr 20, 0800 PDT

Thu Apr 2 09:42:34 UTC 2020

Dear Peter & All,
        please find here below some comments in view of today's 
discussion.
I hope it helps

Ciao & stay safe

Gian Paolo
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

313.0-Y-3       PID     SLS-04  I note your Proposed / Agreed resolution
Accept the revised language.
FROM: The CESG shall review the Candidate registry prior to approving the 
release of the document for its first Agency review. 
TO: The CESG shall review the document (including the Annex with Candidate 
registry) within the CESG Poll for releasing the document for its first 
Agency review.
This is satisfying this condition

313.0-Y-3       GPC     SLS-06   I note your Proposed / Agreed resolution
Remove the "NOTE -".  Make clear that this is a formal part of the CESG 
responsibilities.
This is (in principle) satisfying this condition. However it would be nice 
showing the proposed text to "Make clear that this is a formal part of the 
CESG responsibilities"

313.0-Y-3       GPC     SLS-11  I note your Proposed / Agreed resolution
Accept with modifications:
From:
The CESG is responsible for verifying that SANA and registry requirements 
are met, that the Candidate registry exists and is in appropriate form 
before approving the document for first Agency review. The CESG is also 
responsible for verifying that the registry is in production form prior to 
approving the final document defining the registry for publication.
To:
During the CESG poll prior to first Agency review the CESG is responsible 
for verifying that SANA and registry requirements are met, that the 
Candidate registry exists and is in appropriate form before approving the 
document for first Agency review. During the CESG poll for publication the 
CESG is  responsible for verifying that the registry is in production form 
prior to approving the final document defining the registry for 
publication.
I still dislike part of the proposed modification.
In the first sentence I find redundant "that the Candidate registry exists 
and is in appropriate form" as it is an unnecessary detail.
However I would accept decision by majority of CESG.

313.0-Y-3       GPC     SLS-13, I still think the current text is an 
unnecessary detail.
However I would accept decision by majority of CESG.

313.0-Y-3       GPC     SLS-16  needing CESG discussion, I remark that the 
intention is to mirror in Org&Proc (in whatever form) the possibility of 
creating Expert Groups. If they are assimilated to SIGs (requiring only AD 
actions) fine for me amending (the short) section 2.3.5 SPECIAL INTEREST 
GROUPS (SIGS) instead of (the long) section 5.2.7 SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP 
MEETINGS that is specifically addressing meetings.
If the expert group requires CESG or CMC approval, then something 
dedicated should exist,

313.1-Y-2       MM      addressing "response to  313.0-Y-3, GPC, SLS-16".
It looks to me that the situation of the XML Expert Group (or persistent 
XML SIG?) shall anyhow be clarified.
the matter of recoding participants to these Experts Groups shall also be 
clarified. 

 313.2-Y-2      GPC     SLS-05  I note your Proposed / Agreed resolution
Section 2.3 is, admitedly, long.  It is a non-normative, descriptive, 
section of the document and these are often "descriptive", as intended by 
the format.  We could, as you request, create a separate, formal, "contact 
list" section at the front of section 3 and then just refer to these as 
"SANA Operator", "SSG", "BETA Registries".  Does that scratch your itch?.
YES. This is satisfying this condition

 313.2-Y-2      GPC     SLS-01   I note your Proposed / Agreed resolution
Accepted, with modifications:
FROM:
The registry is expected to be complete and stable prior to the start of 
Agency review.
TO:
The registry is expected to be complete and stable (i.e. fully consistent 
with the draft document) prior to the start of Agency review."
This is satisfying this condition.

 313.2-Y-2      GPC     SLS-02 
Even if not marked so: This needs CESG discussion. 
However I would accept decision by majority of CESG.

 313.2-Y-2      GPC     SLS-04 I do not agree that we shall remark the 
obvious, however I do not want to fight for this.
This is satisfying this condition.

 313.2-Y-2      GPC     SLS-06  This needs CESG discussion. 
 313.2-Y-2      GPC     SLS-08  This needs CESG discussion. 
 313.2-Y-2      GPC     SLS-09  This needs CESG discussion. 
Interoperability Test Reports are WG Chair Responsibility and eventually 
AD & CESG verify those Test Reports.
However I find excessive stating asking CESG to verify interactions (i.e. 
mail exchanges?).
If needed Org&Proc section "6.2.6.1 Approval Criteria b) 1) first bullet" 
(see below) could be amended to add the ned for documenting 
inclusion/verification of required interactions.
- the  WG  Chair  is  responsible  for  documenting  the  specific 
implementations  that  qualify  the  specification  for  CCSDS Recommended 
 Standard  status,  along with reports relevant to their testing; 

 315.1-Y-1      GPC     SLS-06   I note your Proposed / Agreed resolution
.....  Sec 3, pg 3-1, To:
The following structure is defined for the tree under urn:ccsds. The 
requestor of a new or changed URN may be a CCSDS Area, Working Group or 
Agency.  The URN registry is a CCSDS Global registry, as defined in 
reference [6].
This is satisfying this condition

 315.1-Y-1      GPC     SLS-03  See response to  313.0-Y-3, GPC, 
SLS-16.....  needing CESG discussion, I remark that the intention is to 
mirror in Org&Proc (in whatever form) the possibility of creating Expert 
Groups. If they are assimilated to SIGs (requiring only AD actions) fine 
for me amending (the short) section 2.3.5 SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS (SIGS) 
instead of (the long) section 5.2.7 SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP MEETINGS that 
is specifically addressing meetings.
If the expert group requires CESG or CMC approval, then something 
dedicated should exist,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From:   "Shames, Peter M\(US 312B\) via CESG" <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
To:     "Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int" <Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int>
Cc:     "CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec" 
<cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Date:   01-04-20 00:22
Subject:        [CESG] Materials for discussion during CESG WebEx on 
unresolved PIDs, Thursday, 2 Apr 20, 0800 PDT
Sent by:        "CESG" <cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>

Dear Margherita, et al,

Attached please find a spreadsheet with the set of unresolved PIDs that 
were raised during the four recent CESG polls:
1.      Poll CESG-P-2020-02-001, Doc CCSDS 313.0-Y-3, Draft SANA Role, 
Responsibilities, Policies, and Procedures  (largely guidance for the SANA 
Operator and the CMC, CESG, interactions)
2.      Poll CESG-P-2020-02-001, Doc CCSDS 313.1-Y-2, Draft Registry 
Management Policy (describes the overall re-engineering of the set of SANA 
registries, with emphasis on the Enterprise and Global sets, and the 
overall registry use and extension policies)
3.      Poll CESG-P-2020-02-003, Doc CCSDS 313.2-Y-2, Draft Procedures for 
SANA Registry Specification (a concise guide for any WG that needs to 
create or modify a registry, should be the only doc that most WG need to 
read)
4.      Poll CESG-P-2020-02-004, Doc CCSDS 315.1-Y-1, Draft CCSDS URN 
Namespace Policy (the policy for URNs)

There is a total of 25 separate PIDs, but several of them are duplicates 
from different ADs, or are the same issue raised for different documents. 
There are proposed resolutions for all of these.  I believe that only some 
of these really need CESG discussion, and those are so marked in column 
"J" as "This needs CESG discussion. ". Others may have different opinions, 
which I am sure we will discuss.   I will remind everyone that there is a 
separate set of PIDs and resolutions that you have all seen where the 
resolutions were accepted by the ADs who submitted them.  They are not 
included here, only the unresolved ones.

I only prepared this one spreadsheet.  Other materials relating to the 
rationale for this set of editorial changes were already distributed, as 
was the entire set of proposed resolutions and AD "reclama" responses.

See you all on Thursday.

Best regards, and take care, Peter

 [attachment "CESG Poll unresolved issues 313x0,1,2 & 315x1 30Mar20.xlsx" 
deleted by Gian Paolo Calzolari/esoc/ESA] 
_______________________________________________
CESG mailing list
CESG at mailman.ccsds.org
https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cesg

This message is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. It may contain proprietary information and/or
protected content. Any unauthorised disclosure, use, retention or dissemination is prohibited. If you have received
this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately. ESA applies appropriate organisational measures to protect
personal data, in case of data privacy queries, please contact the ESA Data Protection Officer (dpo at esa.int).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20200402/bf952625/attachment-0001.htm>