[CESG] [EXTERNAL] In view of today's discussion: Materials for discussion during CESG WebEx on unresolved PIDs, Thursday, 2 Apr 20, 0800 PDT
Mario.Merri at esa.int
Mario.Merri at esa.int
Mon Apr 6 12:50:08 UTC 2020
Hi Peter,
My only outstanding comment (repeated twice) relates to the duplication of
information across documents, which is clearly ever ideal as it is error
prone. If, however, you and Tom are ready to manage this additional
burden, I am fine with that.
Regards,
__Mario
From: "Shames, Peter M (US 312B)" <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
To: "Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int" <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>,
"Barkley, Erik J (US 3970)" <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>, "Mario Merri"
<Mario.Merri at esa.int>
Cc: "CCSDS CESG --" <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Date: 02/04/2020 20:43
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] In view of today's discussion: [CESG]
Materials for discussion during CESG WebEx on unresolved PIDs, Thursday, 2
Apr 20, 0800 PDT
Gippo, et al,
As part of tracking the acceptance of these changes to resolutions from
this email into the spreadsheet I have colored all of the ones that I
believe are resolved, or that we resolved in today's discussion, in green.
In this set from Gippo only the items left in red appear to still be in
need of closure. This same color coding is used in the spreadsheet. I
have marked any PIDs that I believe are related / identical to ones we
discussed in the same way and referenced the related PIDs where we agreed
to any needed changes. Only those remaining in red appear to be
unresolved.
If you find any discrepancies in this please bring them to our collective
attention.
Now it is up to Mario and Erik to identify if they agree with the proposed
dispositions for their PIDs in the attached, updated, spreadsheet. They
agreed to do this via email.
As we discussed, if we can resolve these remaining issues via email we
will declare "Done". If not we will have a follow-up WebEx in the coming
week, tentatively on Wed, 8 April.
We tentatively agreed to address the SLS DVB-S2 PID issues on Thursday, 16
Apr 2020. I commit to having revised materials out for that discussion no
later than tomorrow, 3 April.
Thanks, Peter
From: Gian Paolo Calzolari <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>
Date: Thursday, April 2, 2020 at 2:42 AM
To: Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] In view of today's discussion: [CESG] Materials for
discussion during CESG WebEx on unresolved PIDs, Thursday, 2 Apr 20, 0800
PDT
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
Accept as written based on CESG discussions.
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"
Accept as written based on CESG discussions.
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.
Accept as written based on CESG discussions.
ð Note that there is a workflow issue that TG raised that still need to
be resolved.
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.
Accept as written based on CESG discussions.
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,
Accept as written based on CESG discussions.
313.1-Y-2 MM addressing "see 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 Modified text to be provided.
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.
Accept as written. Consistent with resolutions for 313.0-Y-3, GPC,
SLS-13, and SLS-16.
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.
Accept as written, consistent with 313.0-Y-3, GPC, SLS-13 & SLS-16
313.2-Y-2 GPC SLS-08 This needs CESG discussion.
Accept as written, consistent with 313.0-Y-3, GPC, SLS-13 & SLS-16
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?).
Accept as written, consistent with 313.0-Y-3, GPC, SLS-13 & SLS-16, but
see this ?
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,
Accept response to 313.0-Y-3 GPC SLS-16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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).[attachment "CESG Poll unresolved
issues 313x0,1,2 & 315x1 2Apr20.xlsx" deleted by Mario Merri/esoc/ESA]
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/20200406/aeaf51eb/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the CESG
mailing list