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

[Nestor.Peccia at esa.int]

Please give me urgently your feedback.
Adrian is asking for a second RB review
ciao
nestor
----- Forwarded by Nestor Peccia/esoc/ESA on 21/07/2008 00:33 -----
                                                                             
             "Adrian J. Hooke"                                               
             <adrian.j.hooke at jp                                              
             l.nasa.gov>                                                  To 
             Sent by:                   CCSDS Rapporteur                     
             cesg-bounces at mailm         <secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org>      
             an.ccsds.org                                                 cc 
                                        cesg at mailman.ccsds.org               
                                                                     Subject 
             18/07/2008 18:10           Re: [CESG] CESG Final Review of XFDU 
                                        Structure and Construction Rules     
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             




At 04:27 PM 7/17/2008, CCSDS Rapporteur wrote:
      1) This document contains technical changes that have not been
      re-circulated for review by the CCSDS Agencies:
       - an "extensionType" has been added in response to a RID.
      - the normative/ruling full XML Schema has been modified (in addition
      to addition of "extensionType"):  attributes/subordinate elements of
      "byteStream" shown in Red-1 issue have been deleted from the current
      issue.

Tom: this clearly rules out CESG approval. If substantive technical changes
have been made, the document needs to go out for another final Agency review.
The only case where changes could be permitted without re-review is the one
where minor editorial fixes were made that did not alter the technical
content.

       2) The graphics supplied with the document are screen-resolution bit
      maps and as such are well below normal publication quality.

Perhaps the WG could fix this problem while the document is being
re-reviewed, and supply you with proper graphics?

Nestor: please advise the WG.

///adrian
_______________________________________________
CESG mailing list
CESG at mailman.ccsds.org
http://mailman.ccsds.org/mailman/listinfo/cesg