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

[John Garrett]

Hi,

Lou will not likely be available to respond for the next couple weeks.
In his absence, the following would be the response of several of us at 
NASA/GSFC:

The "extension" element was added in response to my 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.


Please let us know if anybody on this list believes they or their agency 
or organization has not had a chance to properly review and approve of 
these changes.


Cheers,
-JOhn


Nestor.Peccia at esa.int wrote:
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Moims-dai mailing list
> Moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org
> http://mailman.ccsds.org/mailman/listinfo/moims-dai
>