[Moims-ipr] CESG Final Review of XFDU Structure and Construction Rules

[Nestor.Peccia at esa.int]

----- Forwarded by Nestor Peccia/esoc/ESA on 05/08/2008 15:13 -----
                                                                             
             "Adrian J. Hooke"                                               
             <adrian.j.hooke at jp                                              
             l.nasa.gov>                                                  To 
                                        Nestor.Peccia at esa.int                
             31/07/2008 19:04                                             cc 
                                        "CCSDS Engineering Steering Group -  
                                        ADs" <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>, CCSDS 
                                        Rapporteur                           
                                        <secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org>, Dan 
                                        Crichton                             
                                        <dan.crichton at jpl.nasa.gov>, Steve   
                                        Hughes <John.S.Hughes at jpl.nasa.gov>  
                                                                     Subject 
                                        Re: CESG Final Review of XFDU        
                                        Structure and Construction Rules     
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             




Nestor: I remain unpersuaded that this document is of suitable
quality to forward to the CMC for approval as a Blue Book. I propose
two actions:

1. I  will ask Dan Crichton and Steve Hughes conduct a quick
independent audit of the technical changes introduced since the
"final" Red Book review, to ascertain if they are substantial enough
to warrant a final fast-track Agency review.

2. The figures are a real problem. They are by and large illegible
and yet some of them are  stated to be normative. All of the
normative figures *must* be re-worked and resubmitted to Tom, and the
remainder must be clearly labeled as "informative" if they are not
re-worked to be clear and unambiguous.

Best regards
Adrian

At 07:42 PM 7/23/2008, Nestor.Peccia at esa.int wrote:

>Adrian,
>
>I got the feedback from the IPR WG, which I concur
>ciao
>nestor
>=======================
>
>
>The "extension" element was added in response to a RID which was sent
>in the name of the IPR Working Group which decided it was desirable to
>continue to have an extension capability.  We updated the extension
>capability from just a wildcard to the extension element that contained
>a wildcard to comply with how we believed was the preferred extension
>method suggested by the XML Guidelines SIG. We do not believe the
>addition of the 'extension type' is a 'substantial' technical change in
>the sense of needing another review.  It is an additional, optional,
>feature that does not add significant complexity and it is hard to see
>on what basis anyone would object to adding it.
>
>The "bytestream" element remains unchanged in the XML Schema and is of
>"byteStreamType".
>The full diagram expanded the byteStreamType in the Red Book and did not
>expand it in the Blue Book which has led to this confusion.
>However, it remains unchanged in the draft Blue Book XML Schema and the
>expansion is shown earlier in Figure 8-1 of the draft Blue Book.
>To address Adrian's point, I would suggest that we provide a replacement
>figure with byteStream expanded for Figure 11-1 of the draft Blue Book.
>I believe this is simply an editorial change and should not hold up
>approval as a Blue Book.
>
>We believe the XFDU implementations correctly use the byteStream element
>and the extension capability has also been demonstrated by implementation.
>
>We believe all the concerned agencies have been involved in these minor
>changes, the implementations reflect these minor changes, and all
>concerned agencies have already seen and approved the new material that
>responded to the RIDs.  We also believe it is unlikely that we will have
>any new reviewers and that no substantive RIDs would be generated by
>another agency review.  We feel that approving this as a Blue Book at
>this time could save the agency resources that would need to be applied
>for a formal agency review at each and every one of the agencies.  We
>feel those resources  could better be applied to standards development.