[MOIMS-NAV-EXEC] FW: [Cesg-all] Results of CESG Polls closing 18 October 2019

[Berry, David S (US 3920)]

All:

We have results from the CESG Polls. As mentioned in today's meeting, we will need to resolve the conditions before proceeding to the CMC Polls.

David




On 10/21/19, 12:07 AM, "CESG-All on behalf of CCSDS Secretariat" <cesg-all-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org on behalf of thomas.gannett at tgannett.net> wrote:
    
    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
    CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2019-10-002 
    Approval to publish CCSDS 500.0-G-4, Navigation 
    Data—Definitions and Conventions (Green Book, Issue 4)
    Results of CESG poll beginning 4 October 2019 and ending 18 October 2019:
    
                     Abstain:  0 (0%) Approve 
    Unconditionally:  4 (80%) (Merri, Burleigh, Cola, Calzolari)
    Approve with Conditions:  1 (20%) (Shames)
    Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)
    CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:
    
         Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions):  I 
    skimmed the document and looked, in particular, at the stated contents:
    
    b)Section 3 provides foundational information on 
    the data types and units served by the navigation messages.
    
    c)Section 4 provides details about coordinate 
    frames, time systems, astrodynamics constants, 
    environmental models, and other ancillary 
    concepts important in spacecraft navigation.
    
    d)Section 5 discusses properties and processes of 
    the entities that participate in a navigation data exchange.
    
    e)Section 6 discusses the types and associated 
    attributes of measurements that may be made during a navigation session.
    
    I am left wondering is this document is really 
    best characterized as a Green Book, or if its 
    contents and intended use really make it a 
    Magenta Book in nature?  Magenta Books, after all, state this:
    
        6.1.4.3 Recommended Practices are normative 
    and have prescriptive content but are typically 
    not directly implementable for interoperability 
    or cross support. They may be of several types:
    
            a)  specifications that are 
    “foundational” for other specifications, but 
    within themselves do not define content in a way 
    that allows independent development and testing 
    of separate but interoperable systems;
    Have you considered characterizing this as an MB?
    
         Scott Burleigh (Approve 
    Unconditionally):   Note, not a condition: on 
    page 4-10, for clarity, the x-axis of the graph 
    should be labeled "difference in seconds" or something to that effect.
    
    
    Total Respondents:  5
    
    No response was received from the following Area(s):
    
         CSS
         SOIS
    
    
    
    SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Approved with Conditions
    PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            Generate 
    CMC poll after conditions have been addressed
    
    
    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
    CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2019-10-004 
    Approval to publish CCSDS 508.1-B-1, Re-entry Data Message (Blue Book, Issue 1)
    Results of CESG poll beginning 4 October 2019 and ending 18 October 2019:
    
                     Abstain:  1 (20%) (Calzolari)
    Approve Unconditionally:  3 (60%) (Merri, Burleigh, Cola)
    Approve with Conditions:  1 (20%) (Shames)
    Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)
    CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:
    
         Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions):   In 
    Sec B.1.2, re consequnce of not applying 
    security, isn't it possible that an RDM could be 
    tampered with and there is no mechanism defined 
    to detect this?  This is surely a more general 
    concern in CCSDS in general, but the addition of 
    a simple checksum, or a digital signature, would 
    provide a significant boost in data confidence.
    
    In sec B2, the last paragraph, there is the statement:
    
        "The registration rule for new entries in the 
    registry is the approval of new requests by the 
    CCSDS Area or Working Group responsible for the 
    maintenance of the RDM at the time of the request. "
    
    I am left wondering "new entries in which 
    registry"?  AFAIK there is no new registry 
    specified in this document.  Is this intended to 
    reference the registry of the XML spec?  If so, 
    that should be clear.  Likewise any process for 
    updating the spec and marking a new version.
    
    
    Total Respondents:  5
    
    No response was received from the following Area(s):
    
         CSS
         SOIS
    
    
    
    SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Approved with Conditions
    PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            Generate 
    CMC poll after conditions have been addressed
    
    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
    
    _______________________________________________
    CESG-All mailing list
    CESG-All at mailman.ccsds.org
    https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cesg-all