<font size=2 face="sans-serif">IMHO reusing terms giving them a different
meaning is wrong by nature and prone to introduce backward compatibility
issues.</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">From:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">"Shames, Peter
M (312B)" <peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov></font>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">To:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">"Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int"
<Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int></font>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Cc:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">"CCSDS CESG --"
<cesg@mailman.ccsds.org>, "Tom Gannett" <thomas.gannett@tgannett.net></font>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Date:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">13/07/2016 17:22</font>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Subject:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Re: [CESG] Why
renaming GSCID inf revised CCSDS SCID Code Assignment Control Procedures?</font>
<br>
<hr noshade>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">Dear Gippo,</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">In this case we seem to have a term, GSCID,
defined in 320x0 that is used only in that document and nowhere else. And
we have the fields that compose that term, the VN and SCID, defined in
every other relevant document as the MCID. The only exception to
this, I have been informed, is the new USLP which proposes to use the term
GSCID instead of MCID.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">In order to get this cleared up efficiently
I propose that we use the term MCID in the 320x0 document, thus fixing
that obvious error, and that we also bring the USLP in-line, before it
sees the light of day.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">At that point we can use the term GSCID
as I proposed, without any risk of confusing anyone, since no other document
uses that term.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">Or, if you wish, we can create a new term,
Extended SCID (ESCID) and define it to mean the concatenation of the Frequency
Band with the MCID (or GSCID, if you wish to persist that into the future).
</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">Or perhaps you want to change all of the
other protocol docs to use the term GSCID instead of MCID so that they
are all consistent?</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">Which of these are acceptable, to you and
the other CESG members?</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">Regards, Peter</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size=3 face="Calibri"><b>From: </b>Gian Paolo Calzolari <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int><b><br>
Date: </b>Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 5:30 AM<b><br>
To: </b>Peter Shames <peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov><b><br>
Cc: </b>CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg@mailman.ccsds.org>,
Tom Gannett <thomas.gannett@tgannett.net><b><br>
Subject: </b>Re: [CESG] Why renaming GSCID inf revised CCSDS SCID Code
Assignment Control Procedures?</font>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Dear Peter,</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
I never said that the current situation is
perfect.</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
However i do find inappropriate having a term that means alfa till today
and it will mean beta as of tomorrow.</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Regards</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Gian Paolo</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> <br>
<br>
<br>
</font><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif"><br>
From: </font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">"Shames,
Peter M (312B)" <peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov></font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif"><br>
To: </font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">"Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int"
<Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int>, "CCSDS CESG --" <cesg@mailman.ccsds.org></font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif"><br>
Cc: </font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">"Tom
Gannett" <thomas.gannett@tgannett.net></font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif"><br>
Date: </font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">12/07/2016
18:58</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif"><br>
Subject: </font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Re:
[CESG] Why renaming GSCID inf revised CCSDS SCID Code Assignment Control
Procedures?</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font>
<div align=center>
<hr noshade></div>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><br>
<br>
</font><font size=2 face="Calibri"><br>
Dear Gippo,</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 face="Calibri"><br>
</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 face="Calibri"><br>
I appreciate your attention to detail and looking at this early on, but
I have to differ re some conclusions. I note the following:</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font><font size=2 face="Calibri"><br>
</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=3 face="Calibri"><br>
- </font><font size=2 face="Calibri">The
term GSCID was defined </font><font size=3 face="Calibri">as “</font><font size=3>GSCID
= VN <b>. </b>SCID”</font><font size=2 face="Calibri"> where the “</font><font size=3><b>.</b></font><font size=2 face="Calibri">”
means concatenation.</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=3 face="Calibri"><br>
- </font><font size=2 face="Calibri">The
terms SCID and GSCID are used more or less interchangeably in the CCSDS
320x0b document, but they mean different things. This is a flaw in
the current document that I have tried to remedy.</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font><font size=3 face="Calibri"><br>
- </font><font size=2 face="Calibri">The
term SCID is defined specifically in the various protocol documents, 320x0
just references it.</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=3 face="Calibri"><br>
- </font><font size=2 face="Calibri">The
term GSCID <b><i>does not</i></b> appear in any of our protocol documents,
TC, TM, or AOS. They tend to call the combination of the VN (actually
the TFVN) and the SCID an MCID, not a GSCID.</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font><font size=3 face="Calibri"><br>
- </font><font size=2 face="Calibri">If
you search the CCSDS files you will find that the only reference to GSCID
is in this 320x0 document, and not in any others.</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font><font size=2 face="Calibri"><br>
All of that said, I think that there is really no impediment in the way
of extending the definition of GSCID to include the frequency band, because
globally, in fact, the frequency band has from the beginning been a part
of the actual physical and logical link layer signal. We just did
not acknowledge this until now.</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font><font size=2 face="Calibri"><br>
But if you are worried about some confusion for others we could introduce
a new term for the FB </font><font size=3><b>. </b></font><font size=2 face="Calibri">VN
</font><font size=3><b>. </b></font><font size=2 face="Calibri">SCID combination.
I’m reluctant to call it a “Super” SCID, that sounds like a kid’s
toy. ;-} And in truth, I think that this is more of a Global
SCID than the current definition, and which the protocol docs call an MCID.
In effect we have given the same thing two different names, surely
that is not a good approach? Maybe we should align this book with
all of the existing protocol docs and call the VN </font><font size=3><b>.
</b></font><font size=2 face="Calibri">SCID combo an MCID and the FB </font><font size=3><b>.
</b></font><font size=2 face="Calibri">VN </font><font size=3><b>. </b></font><font size=2 face="Calibri">SCID
combo the GSCID?</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 face="Calibri"><br>
I am open to other suggestions.</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font><font size=2 face="Calibri"><br>
Regards, Peter</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 face="Calibri"><br>
</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 face="Calibri"><br>
</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=3 face="Calibri"><b><br>
From: </b>CESG <cesg-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org> on behalf of Gian
Paolo Calzolari <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int><b><br>
Date: </b>Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 6:18 AM<b><br>
To: </b>CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg@mailman.ccsds.org><b><br>
Cc: </b>Tom Gannett <thomas.gannett@tgannett.net><b><br>
Subject: </b>[CESG] Why renaming GSCID inf revised CCSDS SCID Code Assignment
Control Procedures?</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> <br>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Dear CESGers,</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
in order to gain time and not to delay eventual Poll
and start of Agency Review, I would like to anticipate that as SLS AD I
wonder about the need of renaming GSCID in revised CCSDS SCID Code Assignment
Control Procedures.</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
<br>
In fact the revised book includes a new definition of GSCID (see snapshot)
that is conflicting with the definition in the Blue Book in force (see
second snapshot) as the new one also refers to Frequency Band.</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
<br>
First of all I think that it is not appropriate modifying a term used for
so many years (and for sure spread in "billions" of documents
from many agencies) also considering that the the prefix "Global"
is widely used for e.g. the Global VCID and Global MAP ID (for sure in
SLE and SLS books) without considering the Frequency Band.</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Therefore there would be a discrepancy of meaning about the term Global
between the GSCID and the GVCID</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
<br>
Last, but not list the book title "CCSDS Global Spacecraft Identification
Field" points to a field i.e. a portion of data that is normally contained
in transfer frames. In other words while the actual GSCID matches completely
the contents of some bits of a Frame Header, the proposed future GSCID
will not.</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
<br>
As a conclusion I would retain the current definition of GSCID while
adding a new definition for the concatenation of the frequency band
(FB), 2-bit Version Number (VN) and the SCID.</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
This could be called Universal SCID, Super SCID, Supreme SCID, Frequenced
SCID or whatever you prefer. [Please consider some humour
in some proposed definitions.]</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
<br>
Regards</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
<br>
Gian Paolo</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
<br>
PS Of course I did not perform a complete review of the document.......</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
<br>
<br>
</font><img src=cid:_1_0F2767A40E8881B4003189FFC1257FF0 style="border:0px solid;"><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><br>
</font><img src=cid:_1_0F2769EC0E8881B4003189FFC1257FF0 style="border:0px solid;"><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font><font size=2 face="Courier New"><br>
This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee
or addressees only.</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 face="Courier New"><br>
The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in whole
or in part) of its</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 face="Courier New"><br>
content is not permitted.</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 face="Courier New"><br>
If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete
it from your system.</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 face="Courier New"><br>
Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the sender.</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font><font size=2 face="Courier New"><br>
</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 face="Courier New"><br>
Please consider the environment before printing this email.</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New">This message and any attachments are
intended for the use of the addressee or addressees only.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New">The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination
or copying (either in whole or in part) of its</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New">content is not permitted.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New">If you received this message in error,
please notify the sender and delete it from your system.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New">Emails can be altered and their integrity
cannot be guaranteed by the sender.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New">Please consider the environment before
printing this email.</font>
<br>
<br><PRE>This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee or addressees only.
The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in whole or in part) of its
content is not permitted.
If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system.
Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the sender.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
</PRE>