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

[Nestor.Peccia at esa.int]

----- Forwarded by Nestor Peccia/esoc/ESA on 25/07/2008 15:47 -----
                                                                             
             Nestor                                                          
             Peccia/esoc/ESA                                                 
                                                                          To 
             24/07/2008 01:42           "Adrian J. Hooke"                    
                                        <adrian.j.hooke at jpl.nasa.gov>        
                                                                          cc 
                                        cesg at mailman.ccsds.org,              
                                        cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org,      
                                        CCSDS Rapporteur                     
                                        <secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org>      
                                                                     Subject 
                                        Re: [CESG] CESG Final Review of XFDU 
                                        Structure and Construction Rules     
                                        (Document link: Nestor Peccia)       
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             



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.