[CESG] RE: AW: [SANA #5270] AW: SCID assignments

Wed Jul 29 17:49:12 UTC 2015

Bonjour à tous,

I share the Oswaldo's concern on which explanations or which solutions may be offered by CCSDS to the projects requesting multiple SCId and being rejected for those assets pertaining to the simulator / tester ... category.
I understand the rules have changed (and I do not object the arguments for that) but the procedures were not yet revised (the abstracted blue text below clearly shows that simulators / testers were valid assets to obtain a SCId) ... nor alternate solutions are offered (which we should discuss further now).

In CNES we also have several projects for which simulators have been assigned a SCId, different from the one assigned to the SC.
Some more may come soon with similar requirements...

CCSDS should offer a workaround way to answer these requests and not just reject the request because of the lack of Ids.

Out of your list of activities below, Peter, I see Number 3 as quite promising in terms of solving our SCId capacity issue, but I am not 100% sure if Number 4 could be another solution or not.

In more details:

Number 3: if SANA may allocate the same SCId to several missions, based on the frequency discrimination,  the issue of the testers / simulators may be solved as they fall in the category "no radiation" (meaning "no frequency"). Frequencies are already part of the SCId request form and the information is already available for a majority of missions (I hope).

Number 4: I saw a lot of emails on registries but could not spend enough time with them to be sure of the meaning of "Object Id (OId)" and how it may be used in practice to differentiate the assets of a same satellite project and the assets of multiple projects between them.  It could be, assuming some verifications, that the OID is another way to allow SANA to allocate several times the same SCId to several missions, based on the OID discrimination this time.

Those two options should be explored quickly, and I believe this is the idea in the messages below, to confirm that the activity Number 2 may be cancelled and there is enough room then to continue the allocation to  simulators / testers.
Does it make sense ?

In any case, one criteria to decide is how long it may take to put a solution in place.
If too long, then we have a risk of overflow on the SCIds in the meantime ; if doable in a reasonable time span, it would be a pity to have rejected some requests for SCIds and have a solution for them a few months later...

So my recommendation would be to work on activities 3 or 4, with the objective not to apply number 2.
Of course activities number 1 and 5 should continue, with less pressure on number1 if a solution is found ... and no pressure on number 5 which anyway is a long term and maybe not a global solution.

For further discussions I believe...

Best regards

Jean-Marc Soula
CNES - DCT/OP/C-STA
Advisor, GN Operations
18 Avenue Edouard Belin
31401 Toulouse Cedex 9 - France
Tel.: +33 (0)5 61 2 74647
Fax.: +33 (0)5 61 2 73135
Email: Jean-Marc.Soula at cnes.fr
De : ssg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org [mailto:ssg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] De la part de Shames, Peter M (312B)
Envoyé : mercredi 29 juillet 2015 18:18
À : osvaldo.peinado at dlr.de
Cc : CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec; SANA Steering Group (SSG)
Objet : [SSG] Re: AW: [SANA #5270] AW: SCID assignments
Importance : Haute

Dear Osvaldo,

As I think you are aware, the CCSDS is in danger of running out of available spacecraft ID (SCID) numbers.  You could say that we are now being hurt by our own success because there are so many spacecraft using CCSDS data link and related standards that we no longer can assign a SCID for the spacecraft, the simulator, and other possible "flight-less birds".

In the current SCID document, CCSDS 320.0-B-6C1, we have this statement (emphasis added):

Section 2.1 Purpose of the CCSDS SCID

Because the SCID field is only eight or ten bits long, the SCID is not intended to provide unique identification for all times.
 It is inevitable that the SCIDs will have to be reused; however, at any one time, the number of vehicles under simulation,
test, or active operational control is not anticipated to exceed the available numbering domains.

Clearly this is no longer the case and the SSG, SLS and CESG have been discussing this for at least the last three meetings.  There are several loosely coordinated activities which are now in process that relate to this:

1) We have requested the Agency Representatives to relinquish all assigned SCIDs for spacecraft that are no longer operational.  This has been somewhat successful, but we need to do it again.
2) We are in the process of revising the SCID assignment procedures to no longer allow assignment of multiple SCID for a spacecraft (simulators, testers, etc)
3) We are considering the use of frequency separation as well as the current Version Number (VN) separation that is now in use.  This could relatively easily increase the number assignment space.
4) Under the new registry approach that is now in discussion we will be assigning unique, permanent, object identifiers (OID) to all spacecraft, similators, flightless birds, etc.  These will persist through time.
5) We are working on a new protocol, USLP, with a larger SCID number space.

We have not yet discussed in any depth what recommendation we can make to organizations who wish to have a separate, unique, SCID that they can use internally to distinguish the spacecraft from any other simulators or test gigs.  Clearly this is a concern, but it is may be treated as an internal issue that can be managed locally.  It does not have the same potential for cross agency impact because any such signals will not be broadcast.

If you (or anyone else on this thread) has any other ideas or wishes to contribute to the discussion please do so.  I think that this is an important enough issue for us to work quickly (as quickly as CCSDS can move) to come up with a resolution.

Best regards, Peter

On 7/29/15, 7:43 AM, "osvaldo.peinado at dlr.de<mailto:osvaldo.peinado at dlr.de>" <osvaldo.peinado at dlr.de<mailto:osvaldo.peinado at dlr.de>> wrote:

Dear Audric,
I know about the problem of SCIDs becoming rare.
You can process the satellite one, and discard the SIM one, BUT ....I need to have for the project anyways and official answer from SANA.
It should be possible to inform the users about the situation and in case of rejecting a request indicate a reference to a document and to propose a solution, like "use the same ID as the Spacecraft or something that you like, because your system is a closed one", as example , can you do that?
I have another question:
I need to submit a request for another Satellite and it looks like the link to do the request from the SANA page simply disappear, it is only an E-mail.
It is that correct?
Thanks and best Regards
O. Peinado

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: SANA [mailto:info at sanaregistry.org]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 29. Juli 2015 16:07
An: Peinado, Osvaldo Luis
Betreff: Re: [SANA #5270] AW: SCID assignments

Dear Mr. Peinado,

We were waiting for the SSG answer before getting back to you and see if
you had any constraint on the two SCIDs being assigned at the same time
or not.

If you tell us that we can go and process the non-sim request, we will
happily do that.

Thank you.

--
Best regards,
Audric Schiltknecht
Space Assigned Numbers Authority

Le 2015-07-29 09:47, osvaldo.peinado at dlr.de<mailto:osvaldo.peinado at dlr.de> a écrit :
Dear Audrich
Thank you for your answer.
I´m aware about the discussion about the SIM SCID and that till now is nothing written down to deal with it, but what happened with the SCID for the satellite?
I sent two separate request.
I do not see it also in the list of registry updates, why?
Best Regards
Osvaldo
-----------------------------------
Dr. Osvaldo Peinado
Ground Operations Manager
German Space Operations Center (GSOC)
Tel:  +49 8153 28 3010
Fax:  +49 8153 28 1456
Mobile: +491729410099
German Aerospace Center (DLR)
Oberpfaffenhofen
82234 Wessling
Germany
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Space Assigned Numbers Authority [mailto:info at sanaregistry.org]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 28. Juli 2015 22:35
An: Peinado, Osvaldo Luis
Cc: Space Assigned Numbers Authority
Betreff: SCID assignments
Dear Mr. Peinado,
SANA are currently discussing some issues regarding your recent SCID
requests with the SSG (Sana Steering Group).
When all is sorted out, we will inform you of the result.
Thank you for your understanding.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20150729/22c565b7/attachment.html>