[CESG] CESG-P-2020-07-001 Approval to release CCSDS 766.1-P-2.1, Digital Motion Imagery (Pink Book, Issue 2.1) for CCSDS Agency review

Thu Aug 6 18:20:20 UTC 2020

Dear CESG Members,

Conditions for approval of CCSDS 766.1-P-2.1, Digital Motion Imagery 
(Pink Book, Issue 2.1) 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.
-------------- next part --------------
From:	Barkley, Erik J (US 3970) <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>
Sent:	Thursday, August 06, 2020 2:09 PM
To:	Grubbs, Rodney P. (MSFC-HP27); Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B); Thomas 
Gannett
Cc:	Lindblom, Walter E. (MSFC-IS40)[NICS]
Subject:	RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: CESG-P-2020-07-001 Approval to release CCSDS 766.1-P-
2.1,  Digital Motion Imagery (Pink Book, Issue 2.1) for CCSDS Agency review

Going with "should" language is the essence of the condition, so I'm good with this approach as well.

-Erik 

-----Original Message-----
From: Grubbs, Rodney P. (MSFC-HP27) <rodney.grubbs at nasa.gov> 
Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 10:23
To: Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B) <scott.c.burleigh at jpl.nasa.gov>; Thomas Gannett 
<thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>
Cc: Barkley, Erik J (US 3970) <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>; Lindblom, Walter E. (MSFC-IS40)[NICS] 
<walt.lindblom at nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: CESG-P-2020-07-001 Approval to release CCSDS 766.1-P-2.1, Digital Motion 
Imagery (Pink Book, Issue 2.1) for CCSDS Agency review

Good with me, too! Not that I know much about CFDP....

Tom, will you make the change in your draft?

Rodney Grubbs
NASA Imagery Experts Program Manager
256-603-3270

On 8/6/20, 11:45 AM, "Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B)" <scott.c.burleigh at jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:

    Fine with me.

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Thomas Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>
    Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 9:22 AM
    To: 'Grubbs, Rodney P. (MSFC-HP27)' <rodney.grubbs at nasa.gov>
    Cc: Barkley, Erik J (US 3970) <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>; 'Lindblom, Walter E. (MSFC-IS40)[NICS]' 
<walt.lindblom at nasa.gov>; Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B) <scott.c.burleigh at jpl.nasa.gov>
    Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: CESG-P-2020-07-001 Approval to release CCSDS 766.1-P-2.1, Digital 
Motion Imagery (Pink Book, Issue 2.1) for CCSDS Agency review

    "Class-1 CFDP is recommended . . . " does get the point across, but it does not technically qualify as a 
normative statement according to CCSDS nomenclature.

    I suggest we use "should be used" in place of "is recommended" in both instances.

    Logothete, L.L.C.
    thomas.gannett at tgannett.net
    +1 443 472 0805

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Grubbs, Rodney P. (MSFC-HP27) [mailto:rodney.grubbs at nasa.gov]
    Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2020 12:08 PM
    To: Thomas Gannett
    Cc: Erik.Barkley at jpl.nasa.gov; Lindblom, Walter E. (MSFC-IS40)[NICS]; Burleigh, Scott C (JPL-312B)[Jet 
Propulsion Laboratory]
    Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: CESG-P-2020-07-001 Approval to release CCSDS 766.1-P-2.1, Digital 
Motion Imagery (Pink Book, Issue 2.1) for CCSDS Agency review

    + Scott

    Scott caught the CFDP language after the poll, so we discussed it and decided to let the poll proceed 
but fix it before it went out for Agency Review.

    Erik, Scott's comments below I believe are in sync with yours. If you're good with his suggested 
change, then I think we're good to go.

    From Scott:
    Hi.  I was just now leafing through the Digital Motion Imagery pink sheets, in preparation for voting to 
send it to agency review, when some language in 3.7.22 caught my eye:

    CFDP provides the following two classes for file transmission:
            Class 1Unreliable CFDP transfer over a reliable UT layer;
            Class 2Reliable CFDP.
    For video data, class 2 CFDP shall be used for end-to-end reliability; however, user requirements may 
stipulate that Class 1 CFDP may be utilized.

    A pre-RID, I guess: we really are trying to slowly deprecate class-2 CFDP in favor of running class-1 
CFDP over BP/LTP (or just over LTP).  That policy isnt yet so fully established as to merit a SHALL in this 
language, but maybe a SHOULD.  Something like Class-1 CFDP is recommended for the transmission of 
video data files.  For reliable transmission, class-1 CFDP over a reliable UT layer, with closure requested, 
is recommended.

    Scott

    Rodney Grubbs
    NASA Imagery Experts Program Manager
    256-603-3270

    On 8/6/20, 10:35 AM, "Thomas Gannett" <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net> wrote:

        Rodney and Erik:

        Assuming there is agreement with Erik's edit, can we get a
        quick-turnaround closure of the condition so that I can get the CMC
        poll started today?

        (Actual importance of completing the review prior to the
        scheduled-but-unlikely fall meetings notwithstanding, I would need to
        get the CMC poll started this week for that to be possible.)

        Tom

        At 11:26 AM 8/6/2020, CCSDS Secretariat wrote:
        >Dear Document Rapporteur,
        >
        >The CESG poll to approve release of CCSDS 766.1-P-2.1, Digital
        >Motion Imagery (Pink Book, Issue 2.1) for CCSDS Agency review
        >concluded with conditions. Please negotiate disposition of the
        >conditions directly with the AD(s) who voted to approve with
        >conditions and CC the Secretariat on all related correspondence.
        >
        >
        >CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2020-07-001 Approval to release
        >CCSDS 766.1-P-2.1, Digital Motion Imagery (Pink Book, Issue 2.1) for
        >CCSDS Agency review
        >Results of CESG poll beginning 22 July 2020 and ending 5 August 2020:
        >
        >                 Abstain:  1 (16.67%) (Merri)
        >Approve Unconditionally:  4 (66.67%) (Shames, Burleigh, Moury, Wilmot)
        >Approve with Conditions:  1 (16.67%) (Barkley)
        >Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)
        >CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:
        >
        >     Erik Barkley (Approve with Conditions):  3.7.2.2.2
        > (Requirements re CFDP): FROM: "For video data, class 2 CFDP shall
        > be used for end-to-end reliability; however, user requirements may
        > stipulate that Class 1 CFDP may be utilized."  TO:  "For video
        > data, class 2 CFDP should be used for end-to-end reliability;
        > however, user requirements may stipulate that Class 1 CFDP may be
        > utilized.  RATIONALE:  use of "shall" and "may" in the same
        > sentence indicates it is not really a requirement.
        >
        >     Jonathan Wilmot (Approve Unconditionally):   Agreed with Eric.
        > CFDP Class 1 may be used. When combined with DTN custody transfer
        > there is reliable end to end delivery.
        >
        >Other comments will be provided during agency review. Concern about
        >how camera sync will work on Artemis TTE network.
        >
        >
        >Total Respondents:  6
        >
        >All Areas responded to this question.
        >
        >
        >
        >SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Approved with Conditions
        >PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            Generate CMC poll after
        >conditions have been addressed
        >
        >* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

        Thomas Gannett
        thomas.gannett at tgannett.net
        +1 443 472 0805