<html>
<body>
Dear CESG Members,<br><br>
Conditions for approval to publish CCSDS 131.5-O-1, Erasure Correcting
Codes for Use in Near-Earth and Deep-Space Communications (Orange Book,
Issue 1) have been addressed (related correspondence is attached below).
The Secretariat will now proceed with CMC polling.<br><br>
<br>
At 05:18 PM 9/4/2014, CCSDS Secretariat wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">CESG E-Poll Identifier:
CESG-P-2014-08-004 Approval to publish CCSDS 131.5-O-1, Erasure
Correcting Codes for Use in Near-Earth and Deep-Space Communications
(Orange Book, Issue 1)<br>
Results of CESG poll beginning 20 August 2014 and ending 3 September
2014:<br><br>
Abstain: 0 (0%)<br>
Approve Unconditionally: 3 (50%) (Peccia, Calzolari,
Moury)<br>
Approve with Conditions: 3 (50%) (Shames, Barkley,
Scott)<br>
Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)<br><br>
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:<br><br>
Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions): This is just a proposed Orange
Book, and I am not a coding expert by any means, but this document raises
concerns. We have, over the last few years, had a number of discussions
of erasure codes, but there never was a WG formed to address this. I am
aware of at least two competing erasure coding approaches for handling
outages in high rate channels. The two that come to mind are the
"Digital Fountain" or "Raptor" erasure codes (such as
in IETF RFC 5053) or using MDS with a channel interleaver
(<a href="http://ipnpr.jpl.nasa.gov/progress_report/42-174/174B.pdf" eudora="autourl">
http://ipnpr.jpl.nasa.gov/progress_report/42-174/174B.pdf</a>). Both of
these have been discussed, I believe, within this working group (see
attached).<br><br>
While it is clear that significant work has gone into documenting this
code it is troubling that there is no mention of these other erasure code
approaches nor any comparison with their performance. Since these codes
were discussed with the WG I would expect to see them compared, their
performance evaluated, and a technical discussion provided as to why this
one that has been documented is superior.<br><br>
The stated data outages for optical comm (and Ka band) channels are 1-10
ms. At the very high data rates that these are capable of (100 Mbps to
more than 1 Gbps), a 10 ms outage amounts to a loss of as much as 10**7
bits. As a result I am also concerned about the ability of these
relatively short block codes to be able to deal with these sorts of data
outages that I believe either Raptor or the MDS / channel interleaver
approaches can handle.<br><br>
I therefore request that the WG address these issues prior to publishing
this specification.<br><br>
Erik Barkley (Approve with Conditions): The secretariat is requested to
fix the legends in figures E-3, E-4, and E-5. They appear to be using an
extended character coding such that they are no longer rendered as
English text. (It is likely the same legend from Figure E-2 can be
used).<br><br>
Keith Scott (Approve with Conditions): RIDs in attached .zip file. The
excel spreadsheet is just the data used to generate the RIDs.<br><br>
<br>
Total Respondents: 6<br>
No response was received from the following Area(s):<br><br>
SOIS<br><br>
SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with
Conditions<br>
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT
ACTION:
Generate CMC poll after conditions have been addressed<br><br>
</blockquote><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">From: "Barkley, Erik J
(3970)" <erik.j.barkley@jpl.nasa.gov><br>
To: Thomas Gannett <tomg@aiaa.org>,
"Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int"<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
<Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int><br>
CC: "Scott, Keith L." <kscott@mitre.org>,
"Massimo.Bertinelli@esa.int"<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
<Massimo.Bertinelli@esa.int>, "Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de"
<Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de>,<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
"Shames, Peter M (312B)"
<peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov><br>
Subject: RE: SIS RIDs 131x5o0: erasure codes<br><br>
The legends are quite legible now. Fine with me to move
forward.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
-Erik<br>
<br>
<b>From:</b> Thomas Gannett
[<a href="mailto:tomg@aiaa.org" eudora="autourl">mailto:tomg@aiaa.org</a>
] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, October 22, 2014 2:18 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Scott, Keith L.; Massimo.Bertinelli@esa.int;
Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de; Shames, Peter M (312B); Barkley, Erik J (3970)<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: SIS RIDs 131x5o0: erasure codes<br>
<br>
All:<br><br>
I believe the attached update to the Erasure Codes Orange Book draft
responds to all CESG poll conditions. Unless anyone objects I intend to
inform the CESG that all conditions have been addressed and proceed to
CMC polling.<br><br>
Best regards,<br>
Tom</blockquote><br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font size=1 color="#5F5F5F">
From:
</font><font size=1>"Scott, Keith L."
<kscott@mitre.org></font> <br>
<font size=1 color="#5F5F5F">
To:
</font><font size=1>"Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de"
<Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de>, </font><br>
<font size=1 color="#5F5F5F">
Cc:
</font><font size=1>"Massimo.Bertinelli@esa.int"
<Massimo.Bertinelli@esa.int>,
"Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int"
<Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int></font> <br>
<font size=1 color="#5F5F5F">
Date:
</font><font size=1>10/10/2014 15:59</font> <br>
<font size=1 color="#5F5F5F">
Subject:
</font><font size=1>RE: SIS RIDs 131x5o0: erasure codes</font> <br>
<br>
<br><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri" size=4 color="#37605E">These work for me, Tomaso,
and I think they give EC a lot more applicability (wider scope) within
CCSDS.</font> <br>
<font face="Calibri" size=4 color="#37605E"> </font> <br>
<font face="Calibri" size=4 color="#37605E">
--keith</font> <br>
<font face="Calibri" size=4 color="#37605E"> </font> <br>
<font face="Calibri" size=2><b>From:</b> Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de
[<a href="mailto:Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de">mailto:Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de</a>]
<b><br>
Sent:</b> Friday, October 10, 2014 9:54 AM<b><br>
To:</b> Scott, Keith L.<b><br>
Cc:</b> Massimo.Bertinelli@esa.int; Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int<b><br>
Subject:</b> SIS RIDs 131x5o0: erasure codes</font> <br>
<font face="Calibri" size=2> </font> <br>
<font face="Calibri" size=2>Dear Keith,</font> <br>
<font face="Calibri" size=2> </font> <br>
<font face="Calibri" size=2>I carefully went through all your comments
collected in the RID forms and I generated a new document with the
original comment and the proposed dispositions. In attached you can also
find a new version of Figure 2-6, where I also considered IPoC (as from
your suggestion) and CFDP encaps for the sake of completeness, since EC
interface is designed such to allow “interaction” also with these layers.
Now the figure is more precise: obviously the text in the book will be
updated accordingly, as also pointed out in some RIDs’
dispositions.</font> <br>
<font face="Calibri" size=2> </font> <br>
<font face="Calibri" size=2>Please let me know if the proposed
dispositions are fine with you</font> <br>
<font face="Calibri" size=2> </font> <br>
<font face="Calibri" size=2>Best Regards,</font> <br>
<font face="Calibri" size=2> </font> <br>
<font face="Calibri" size=2>Tomaso</font> <br>
</blockquote><br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">To: "Shames, Peter M
(312B)" <peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov><br>
CC: CCSDS CESG -- <cesg@mailman.ccsds.org>,
"Massimo.Bertinelli@esa.int"<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
<Massimo.Bertinelli@esa.int>, "Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de"
<Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de>,<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>Tom
Gannett <tomg@aiaa.org>, CCSDS Secretariat<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
<secretariat@mailman.ccsds.org><br>
Subject: Re: SLS reply to SEA AD conditions for CESG review of CCSDS
131.5-O-1, Erasure<br>
Correcting Codes for Use in Near-Earth and Deep-Space
Communications<br><br>
<font size=2>Dear Peter,</font> <br>
<font size=2> thank you for
taking the time to quickly analyze the SLS response. I am glad of
listening that you are willing to withdraw the poll condition.</font>
<br>
<font size=2>Your alternative condition is just normal practice as there
is nothing like a "default promotion to blue book status for a
published orange book" in CCSDS rules.</font> <br>
<font size=2>Moreover, whenever the C&S WG has approved (just by
chance always under my WG chairmanship) starting an Orange Book (e.g.
LDPC Codes, SCCC and, finally, Erasure Codes) it has always been remarked
(and reported) that the Working Group consensus had to be intended as the
fact that "WG task will be limited to providing comments
with<b> no implication of support to eventual
standardization</b>."</font> <br><br>
<font size=2>SLS Area can therefore assure that CCSDS rules will be
followed in producing a consensus standard that fits with the rest of our
normal standards as this is normal practice and all characters from WG
Members to CESG and CMC Members look after this.</font> <br><br>
<font size=2>Thank you for confirming to Secretariat that your conditions
are fulfilled and we can proceed to next step.</font> <br><br>
<font size=2>Best ergards</font> <br><br>
<font size=2>Gian Paolo</font> <br><br>
<br><br>
<font size=1 color="#5F5F5F">
From:
</font><font size=1>"Shames, Peter M (312B)"
<peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov></font> <br>
<font size=1 color="#5F5F5F">
To:
</font><font size=1>"Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int"
<Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int>, "Nestor.Peccia@esa.int"
<Nestor.Peccia@esa.int>, </font><br>
<font size=1 color="#5F5F5F">
Cc: </font><font size=1>Moury
Gilles <Gilles.Moury@cnes.fr>,
"Massimo.Bertinelli@esa.int"
<Massimo.Bertinelli@esa.int>, "Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de"
<Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de>, CCSDS CESG --
<cesg@mailman.ccsds.org>, Tom Gannett <tomg@aiaa.org></font>
<br>
<font size=1 color="#5F5F5F">
Date:
</font><font size=1>22/10/2014 03:04</font> <br>
<font size=1 color="#5F5F5F">
Subject:
</font><font size=1>Re: SLS reply to SEA AD conditions for CESG review of
CCSDS 131.5-O-1, Erasure Correcting Codes for Use in Near-Earth and
Deep-Space Communications</font> <br>
<br>
<br><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri" size=2>Dear Gippo, et al,</font> <br><br>
<font face="Calibri" size=2>As promised I am providing my reply to your
rejection of this SEA RID. I am willing to withdraw this condition
to publishing this Orange Book now, but must insist that a different, but
related, condition be agreed to by the C&S WG and the SLS
Area. </font><br><br>
<font face="Calibri" size=2>My alternative condition is this: That
the SLS Area and C&S WG agree that this Orange Book shall not be
proposed for promotion to Blue Book status unless and until the normal
evaluation, comparison, study, analysis, and multi-agency prototyping be
performed and concurred by the whole working group.
</font><br><br>
<font face="Calibri" size=2>I expressly wish to avoid a situation where
this document sits around and, like a nice Bleu chesse, ages until it
magically turns Blue. As long as I am assured that shall not
happen, and that normal CCSDS processes will be followed in producing a
consensus standard that fits with the rest of our normal standards, I
will remove this condition.</font> <br><br>
<font face="Calibri" size=2>Do I have that agreement?</font> <br><br>
<font face="Calibri" size=2>Best regards, Peter</font> <br><br>
<br><br>
<font face="Calibri" size=2><b>From: </b>Gian Paolo Calzolari
<</font><a href="mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int">
<font face="Calibri" size=2 color="#0000FF"><u>
Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int</a></u></font><font face="Calibri" size=2>
><b><br>
Date: </b>Thursday, October 16, 2014 3:10 AM<b><br>
To: </b>Peter Shames
<</font><a href="mailto:peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov">
<font face="Calibri" size=2 color="#0000FF"><u>
peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov</a></u></font><font face="Calibri" size=2>
>, Nestor Peccia
<</font><a href="mailto:Nestor.Peccia@esa.int">
<font face="Calibri" size=2 color="#0000FF"><u>Nestor.Peccia@esa.int</a>
</u></font><font face="Calibri" size=2>><b><br>
Cc: </b>Gilles Moury
<</font><a href="mailto:Gilles.Moury@cnes.fr">
<font face="Calibri" size=2 color="#0000FF"><u>Gilles.Moury@cnes.fr</a>
</u></font><font face="Calibri" size=2>>,
"</font><a href="mailto:Massimo.Bertinelli@esa.int">
<font face="Calibri" size=2 color="#0000FF"><u>
Massimo.Bertinelli@esa.int</a></u></font><font face="Calibri" size=2>
"
<</font><a href="mailto:Massimo.Bertinelli@esa.int">
<font face="Calibri" size=2 color="#0000FF"><u>
Massimo.Bertinelli@esa.int</a></u></font><font face="Calibri" size=2>
>,
"</font><a href="mailto:Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de">
<font face="Calibri" size=2 color="#0000FF"><u>Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de</a>
</u></font><font face="Calibri" size=2>"
<</font><a href="mailto:Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de">
<font face="Calibri" size=2 color="#0000FF"><u>Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de</a>
</u></font><font face="Calibri" size=2>>, Tomaso de Cola
<</font><a href="mailto:Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de">
<font face="Calibri" size=2 color="#0000FF"><u>Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de</a>
</u></font><font face="Calibri" size=2>>, CCSDS Engineering Steering
Group - CESG Exec
<</font><a href="mailto:cesg@mailman.ccsds.org">
<font face="Calibri" size=2 color="#0000FF"><u>cesg@mailman.ccsds.org</a>
</u></font><font face="Calibri" size=2>>, Tom Gannett
<</font><a href="mailto:tomg@aiaa.org">
<font face="Calibri" size=2 color="#0000FF"><u>tomg@aiaa.org</a></u>
</font><font face="Calibri" size=2>><b><br>
Subject: </b>SLS reply to SEA AD conditions for CESG review of CCSDS
131.5-O-1, Erasure Correcting Codes for Use in Near-Earth and Deep-Space
Communications</font> <br><br>
<font size=2>Dear Peter,</font><font face="Calibri" size=2> </font><br>
in the above mentioned CESG Poll you
have voted APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS.<br>
Following such a vote, you find here attached the replies from Tomaso de
Cola (book Editor and DLR representative in SLS-C&S) including some
detailed technical discussion over your remarks.. <br>
Note that C&S WG Chair Massimo Bertinelli shares completely what
Tomaso wrote as this is perfectly in line, in his opinion, with the
decisions taken at WG level over the years.<br>
Moreover, Gilles and I fully support DLR position as Experimental
Specifications (Orange Books) are meant to document experimental
solution developed unilaterally by an agency with no obligation to
provide trade-off with justification and this was never requested to
other precursor orange books.<font face="Calibri" size=2> <br>
</font><br>
It is SLS Area opinion that your SEA AD conditions are therefore invalid
and we all invite you to withdraw them.<font face="Calibri" size=2><br>
</font><br>
Dear Nestor,<font face="Calibri" size=2> </font><br>
as CESG Chair can you please advice
on the way to follow?<font face="Calibri" size=2><br>
</font><br>
Thank you all and best regards<font face="Calibri" size=2> <br>
</font><br>
Gian Paolo<font face="Calibri" size=2> <br>
</font></blockquote></body>
</html>