[CESG] [EXTERNAL] In view of today's discussion: Materials for discussion during CESG WebEx on unresolved PIDs, Thursday, 2 Apr 20, 0800 PDT
Shames, Peter M (US 312B)
peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov
Mon Apr 6 17:41:32 UTC 2020
Thanks Mario. I appreciate the support. With your agreement we will mark these as resolved.
I think we all realize that this is a potential source of issues. In fact, I think I detected an inconsistency that will need to be rectified before we publish.
That said, I still believe that having separate docs for different purposes makes sense. One for the SANA Operator, one for WG "normal" guidance, and one for anyone who needs to understand the full RMP and how all of the Enterprise and global registries are designed and managed.
There are similar parallels among other YB, like the CCSDS Org & Proc and the specific Publication details, or the Org & Proc and the SANA Operator (and now WG guidance) details. In fact, I think the same kinds of parallels occur in WG between BB or MB content and GB content. It all takes added effort and coordinated updates, but keeps the normative, and informative, content at least somewhat separated.
Kind regards, Peter
From: Mario Merri <Mario.Merri at esa.int>
Date: Monday, April 6, 2020 at 5:50 AM
To: Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>, Erik Barkley <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>, Gian Paolo Calzolari <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>
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
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.
=> 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/20200406/6347bb43/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the CESG
mailing list