[CMC] Results of CMC Polls Closing 11 July 2011

Tue Jul 12 17:04:53 EDT 2011

CMC E-Poll Identifier:  CMC-P-2011-06-002 
Authorization to Publish CCSDS A02.1-3, 
Organization and Processes for the Consultative 
Committee for Space Data Systems (Yellow Book, Issue 3)

Results of CMC poll beginning 10 June 2011 and ending 11 July 2011:

                 ADOPT:  4 (50%) (ASI, INPE, JAXA, UKSA)
   ADOPT PROVISIONALLY:  4 (50%) (CNES, DLR, ESA, NASA)
                REJECT:  0 (0%)
  REJECT WITH COMMENTS:  0 (0%)

      CNES:  * CNES agrees with ESA provisions concerning the PICS.
* An editorial comment is that the titles in the 
table of contents do not match the titles in the text (at least section 1).
* Finally, as a number of the CNES comments made 
during the last review of the document were not 
taken into account, CNES will soon produce RFC's 
to the same document but at this stage CNES will 
not delay the edition of the proposed version 
with CCSDS has been missing for too long.
      DLR:  DLR proposes to change recommended 
standards into standards, because DLR cannot see 
any additional value from the word recommended 
and in the end on the ISO level  we will have a standard.

NASA comments can be accepted by DLR

DLR can follow the ESA argumentation on PICS

Other comments:
1.3.1.3: Add recommended practices beside recommended standards in a)
1.3.1.4.6: Reformulate the secretary’s duties to a more stringent wording.
1.3.2.2: Delete Expert from the definition in a). 
There are area directors, which are experts for 
their domain in CCSDS but not expert area directors.
1.3.2.3: Delete “and protocols” from a). 
Standards may be protocols and they are therefore 
already included in this term.
Add deputies in n). But according 1.3.3.4 both WG 
chairs and their deputies are only approved by 
CESG. They are appointed by the AD.
1.3.2.4.3: Add a bullet like:
ADs are responsible for the work done in their WGs, BOFs and SIGs.
1.3.4: Limit the lifetime of a BOF to one year.
      ESA:  (see the same text with colours in the attached file)
ESA Conditions for poll CMC-P-2011-06-002

All references to PICS have to be performed 
according to the decisions made at CESG level.

Section 5.1.2
Definition of protocol was not accepted by CESG. 
Please insert tbd in definition or delete it

Section 5.2.6 b) 1, 4th sub-bullet. Please add text in red
• each Recommended Standard defining a protocol 
shall contain, as a normative annex, either a 
Protocol Implementation Conformance Statement 
(PICS) proforma that provides a statement of what 
conformance to the specification means or a 
statement explaining why one is not included.
• Fifth sub-bullet needs also to be updated

Annex B.2.1, a, last paragraph. Please add text in red
• Blue Books defining protocols must include 
either a Protocol Implementation Conformance 
Statement (PICS) proforma as a normative annex 
(See annex F for details about the structure, 
content, and an example of the PICS proforma.) or 
a statement explaining why one is not included.

Annex F, A.1 Overview. Please remove PICS 
reference and explanations for all cases except 
protocols. Rationale is shown below.
• Decision of PICS definition for Information 
object standards (i.e., data exchange specs like 
TDM or XFDU), service specifications, coding 
specifications, modulation specifications, and 
compression specifications were deferred until 
the next CESG physical meeting at Boulder 
Colorado (Nov 2011). An ICS (Information 
Compliance Statement) will be presented and 
discussed at that venue. Once agreed the document 
CCSDS A02.1-Y-2.1d shall be updated.
Annex F, A.1, 1st Paragraph. Please add text in red
• This annex provides the rationale, content 
guidelines and nominal structure for a CCSDS 
Protocol Implementation Conformance Statement 
(PICS) proforma. The PICS proforma is a required 
normative annex in all CCSDS Blue Books. There 
might be cases where the PICS annex contains a 
statement why one is not included.
Annex F, A.1 2nd paragraph
• A reference to the CCSDS Nomenclature has to be added
Annex F, A.1 last paragraph
• The PICS in 714.0-B-2 are very different from 
the draft PICS Annex provided on pages F-3, etc.
      NASA:  My provisions are 3 minor 
corrections identified during this final review of the document:
(1) 5.1.3.2, 5th line “Standards may be defined
” 
should be “Recommended Standards may be defined
”
(2) 5.1.3.4, last sentence should be preceded 
with “However, unlike Recommended Standards, 
Recommended Practices do not include the level of
”
(3) Additionally, 5.1.3.4 seems to be a 
continuation of 5.1.3.3, and perhaps should not 
be cited as a new paragraph number.

Results are based on responses from 8 out of 11 members (72.73%).

No response was received from the following Agencies:

CNSA
CSA
FSA

Secretariat Interpretation of Results:  Adopted Provisionally
Resulting CMC Resolution:               CMC-R-2011-07-002
Inferred Secretariat Action:            Address Provisions; Publish Document

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CMC E-Poll Identifier:  CMC-P-2011-06-003 
Authorization to publish CCSDS 313.0-Y-1, Space 
Assigned Numbers Authority (SANA)--Role, 
Responsibilities, Policies, and Procedures (Yellow Book, Issue 1)

Results of CMC poll beginning 22 June 2011 and ending 11 July 2011:

                 ADOPT:  4 (57.14%) (ASI, INPE, JAXA, UKSA)
   ADOPT PROVISIONALLY:  3 (42.86%) (CNES, DLR, NASA)
                REJECT:  0 (0%)
  REJECT WITH COMMENTS:  0 (0%)

      CNES:  1) Agree that SANA SG membership 
should be removed from section 3.7.
2) SANA being a registry operated by the SANA 
Operator and, SANA SG being another player in the 
game, the complete document should be checked to 
clearly refer to SANA Operator or to SANA SG as 
subject of sentences like "SANA shall work", 
"SANA shall notify", etc... A registry cannot do such things.
      DLR:  DLR agrees with the comments of CNES and NASA
      NASA:  Section 3.7 spells out that the 
membership of the SANA Steering Group should be 
exactly (a) Secretariat representative, (b) SEA 
representative, (c) SANA WG representative, and 
(d) member of another agency.  I think that the 
CMC may want to adjust the membership as time 
goes by, and it would be better to be not so 
specific in this document.  I recommend section 
3.7 be changed to simply say "The Membership of 
the SANA Steering Group is determined and approved by the CMC".
Also, NASA agrees with the CNES comments.

Results are based on responses from 7 out of 11 members (63.64%).

No response was received from the following Agencies:

CNSA
CSA
ESA
FSA

Secretariat Interpretation of Results:  Adopted Provisionally
Resulting CMC Resolution:               CMC-R-2011-07-003
Inferred Secretariat Action:            Address Provisions; Publish Document

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ESA-conditions-for-poll- CMC-P-2011-06-002.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 29696 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cmc/attachments/20110712/64ba3763/ESA-conditions-for-poll-CMC-P-2011-06-002-0001.doc