<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Peter, </div><div id="AppleMailSignature">As already written you want to stop agency review for a CMC approved projects because you don't like the VCM draft red book contents that fully reflect the current CCSDS status. </div><div id="AppleMailSignature">BTW, what is missing is just because the interested agency (btw the same that proposed the vcm book) is still studying how to do vcm with some other codes. </div><div id="AppleMailSignature">I think this is unfair and wasting resources specially considering that the book can be updated (as red 2 or magenta 2) as soon as other solutions are standardized after study and prototyping. </div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><br></div><div id="AppleMailSignature">However it is your call rejecting the book and we will miss this slot. </div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><br></div><div id="AppleMailSignature">I think this will be a subject for CESG after holidays. </div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><br></div><div id="AppleMailSignature">Regards from very hot Italy</div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><br></div><div id="AppleMailSignature">Gian Paolo</div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><br></div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><br><br>Sent from my iPhone</div><div><br>On 8. Aug 2017, at 08:46, Massimo Bertinelli <<a href="mailto:Massimo.Bertinelli@esa.int">Massimo.Bertinelli@esa.int</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><font size="2" face="sans-serif">Dear Peter,</font>
<br>
<br><font size="2" face="sans-serif">to be clear, this is not my suggestion.
I simply stated that we cannot meet your conditions in time for the Fall
meeting and so, if the conditions stay, we cannot have </font>
<br><font size="2" face="sans-serif">the Agency in useful time for it. </font>
<br>
<br><font size="2" face="sans-serif">Best regards,</font>
<br><font size="2" face="sans-serif">Massimo</font>
<br><font size="2" face="sans-serif"><br>
<br>
---------------------------------------------------<br>
Massimo Bertinelli<br>
Communication Systems Engineer<br>
ESA/Estec<br>
<br>
Tel. +31 (0)71 5653435<br>
--------------------------------------------------</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)" <<a href="mailto:peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov">peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov</a>></font>
<br><font size="1" color="#5f5f5f" face="sans-serif">To:
</font><font size="1" face="sans-serif">"<a href="mailto:Massimo.Bertinelli@esa.int">Massimo.Bertinelli@esa.int</a>"
<<a href="mailto:Massimo.Bertinelli@esa.int">Massimo.Bertinelli@esa.int</a>></font>
<br><font size="1" color="#5f5f5f" face="sans-serif">Cc:
</font><font size="1" face="sans-serif">CCSDS Engineering Steering
Group - CESG Exec <<a href="mailto:cesg@mailman.ccsds.org">cesg@mailman.ccsds.org</a>>, "<a href="mailto:Enrico.Vassallo@esa.int">Enrico.Vassallo@esa.int</a>"
<<a href="mailto:Enrico.Vassallo@esa.int">Enrico.Vassallo@esa.int</a>>, "<a href="mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int">Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int</a>"
<<a href="mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int">Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int</a>>, "CCSDS Rapporteur" <<a href="mailto:thomas.gannett@tgannett.net">thomas.gannett@tgannett.net</a>></font>
<br><font size="1" color="#5f5f5f" face="sans-serif">Date:
</font><font size="1" face="sans-serif">08/07/2017 05:48 PM</font>
<br><font size="1" color="#5f5f5f" face="sans-serif">Subject:
</font><font size="1" face="sans-serif">Re: Results
of CESG Polls closing 1 August 2017</font>
<br>
<hr noshade="">
<br>
<br>
<br><font size="2" face="Calibri">Dear Massimo,</font>
<br><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size="2" face="Calibri">I would agree that we have some misunderstanding.
As you point out, we already have the SCCC and DVB books, including
a DVB Green Book. Each has it's own similar, but somewhat different,
VCM spec. Perhaps it is just me, but I do not see much value in publishing
another book now that just says "If you want to have VCM as a capability
in CCSDS use SCCC or DVB." </font>
<br><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size="2" face="Calibri">What I thought you were producing was a
book that would describe how to have the VCM capability work with the rest
of the CCSDS coding and modulations, integrated cleanly into the CCSDS
family of standards. This sounds a lot like what you stated "The
idea of the VCM book is simply to explain how a VCM system could be implemented
by re-using existing specifications.", but it would require that integration
with the rest of CCSDS link, coding, and modulations be described and also
resolving which of the physical layer signaling methods, the "pilots"
was going to be recommended for full interoperability. You have a
lot of that in this document, I think you just need to complete the work.</font>
<br><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size="2" face="Calibri">Like you, I believe that such a document
would be a very useful addition to the CCSDS standards. I just do
not think that this document, in its current form, gets that job done.
So what concerns me, at that point, is that if we were to publish
this incomplete spec now it would be very confusing for our users when
we publish the complete spec in another six months or so. I can see
little benefit to the community by having two similar, but different, specs
that cover this same topic.</font>
<br><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size="2" face="Calibri">Since it seems that you agree that a more
complete spec is really what is needed, then I think that we must do what
you suggest and not send this out for agency review at this time.</font>
<br><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size="2" face="Calibri">Thanks for your understanding.</font>
<br><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size="2" face="Calibri">Best regards, Peter</font>
<br><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size="3" face="Calibri"><b>From: </b>"<a href="mailto:Massimo.Bertinelli@esa.int">Massimo.Bertinelli@esa.int</a>"
<<a href="mailto:Massimo.Bertinelli@esa.int">Massimo.Bertinelli@esa.int</a>><b><br>
Date: </b>Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 11:52 PM<b><br>
To: </b>Peter Shames <<a href="mailto:peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov">peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov</a>><b><br>
Cc: </b>CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <<a href="mailto:cesg@mailman.ccsds.org">cesg@mailman.ccsds.org</a>>,
"<a href="mailto:Enrico.Vassallo@esa.int">Enrico.Vassallo@esa.int</a>" <<a href="mailto:Enrico.Vassallo@esa.int">Enrico.Vassallo@esa.int</a>>, Gian
Paolo Calzolari <<a href="mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int">Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int</a>>, Tom Gannett <<a href="mailto:thomas.gannett@tgannett.net">thomas.gannett@tgannett.net</a>><b><br>
Subject: </b>Re: Results of CESG Polls closing 1 August 2017</font>
<br><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size="2" face="sans-serif">Dear Peter,</font><font size="2" face="Calibri">
<br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif"><br>
I believe there may be some misunderstandings. The idea of the VCM book
is simply to explain how a VCM system could be implemented by re-using
existing <br>
specifications. This is fairly easy with CCSDS 131.2-B and 131.3-B, because
they already include all the necessary "building blocks". To
use other codes from <br>
131.0-B (and specifically LDPC and turbo codes), some of the elements are
still under study (e.g. pilots) by both C&S and RFM WG (eventually,
the 401.0-B book may</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font><font size="2" face="sans-serif"><br>
need to be modified to include them).</font><font size="2" face="Calibri">
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif"><br>
>From your comments, I understand that this is a blocking point for you.</font><font size="2" face="Calibri">
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif"><br>
Considering that there is virtually no chance of solving this point before
the Fall meeting, I would conclude that your conditions cannot be met and
we cannot start <br>
the Agency Review.</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"> <br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif"><br>
I will wait for your confirmation of my interpretation before informing
C&S WG (I believe Enrico will do the same for RFM WG) that the work
cannot proceed for now.</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"> <br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif"><br>
Best regards,</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font><font size="2" face="sans-serif"><br>
Massimo</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font><font size="2" face="sans-serif"><br>
<br>
<br>
---------------------------------------------------<br>
Massimo Bertinelli<br>
Communication Systems Engineer<br>
ESA/Estec<br>
<br>
Tel. +31 (0)71 5653435<br>
--------------------------------------------------</font><font size="2" face="Calibri">
<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)" <<a href="mailto:peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov">peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov</a>></font><font size="2" face="Calibri">
</font><font size="1" color="#5f5f5f" face="sans-serif"><br>
To: </font><font size="1" face="sans-serif">"<a href="mailto:Massimo.Bertinelli@esa.int">Massimo.Bertinelli@esa.int</a>"
<<a href="mailto:Massimo.Bertinelli@esa.int">Massimo.Bertinelli@esa.int</a>></font><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font><font size="1" color="#5f5f5f" face="sans-serif"><br>
Cc: </font><font size="1" face="sans-serif">"<a href="mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int">Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int</a>"
<<a href="mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int">Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int</a>>, "CCSDS Rapporteur" <<a href="mailto:thomas.gannett@tgannett.net">thomas.gannett@tgannett.net</a>>,
"<a href="mailto:Enrico.Vassallo@esa.int">Enrico.Vassallo@esa.int</a>" <<a href="mailto:Enrico.Vassallo@esa.int">Enrico.Vassallo@esa.int</a>>, CCSDS
Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <<a href="mailto:cesg@mailman.ccsds.org">cesg@mailman.ccsds.org</a>></font><font size="2" face="Calibri">
</font><font size="1" color="#5f5f5f" face="sans-serif"><br>
Date: </font><font size="1" face="sans-serif">08/03/2017
08:27 PM</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font><font size="1" color="#5f5f5f" face="sans-serif"><br>
Subject: </font><font size="1" face="sans-serif">Re:
Results of CESG Polls closing 1 August 2017</font><font size="2" face="Calibri">
</font>
<div align="center">
<hr noshade=""></div>
<br><font size="2" face="Calibri"><br>
<br>
</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"><br>
Ciao Massimo,</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font><font size="2" face="Calibri"><br>
</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font><font size="2" face="Calibri"><br>
Like you I would very much like to see this document get sent out for agency
review and eventually get published as a CCSDS standard. I think
it can serve a very useful purpose that will be valuable to multiple missions,
particularly those that would benefit from more available link margin during
a long pass. That said, as I understand it, the intended purpose of this
book, as stated in 1.2 is this:</font><font size="2" face="Calibri">
</font><font size="2" color="#0082bf" face="Calibri"><br>
</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font><font size="2" color="#0082bf" face="Calibri"><br>
"The purpose of this Recommended Practice is to specify various combinations
of coding and modulations in references TM S&CC [1], SCCC [2], ETSI
DVB-S2 [4], and DVB [5], that can operate under the VCM protocol defined
in references SCCC [2] and ETSI DVB-S2 [4]. "</font><font size="2" face="Calibri">
</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"><br>
</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font><font size="2" face="Calibri"><br>
As such the intent is to provide a spec that may optionally be used to
provide a variable coding and modulation signaling approach that works
with all of the available CCSDS specified codes and modulations, and, more
importantly in my eyes, work with all of the available CCSDS space data
link protocols. I do not think that purpose is quite so clearly stated
in the document, but I believe it is what is intended.</font><font size="2" face="Calibri">
</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"><br>
</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font><font size="2" face="Calibri"><br>
In a similar way to what you stated in your comment 2., this VCM concept
is defined, and used, in SCCC and DVB-S2. But that is not the point
of this spec. If that were the point then there would be no need
for this, we could just say "if you want VCM features use SCCC and
DVB-S2." But the intent of this spec is somewhat different,
it is to provide this capability so that it works with all of the CCSDS
link protocols, codes, and modulations. So I think it should be clear
and unambiguous about that point.</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font><font size="2" face="Calibri"><br>
</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font><font size="2" face="Calibri"><br>
Where I am having problems with the spec is that it is not really specific
as to just what is being recommended. As you point out, in Sec 3.1
it says:</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font><font size="2" face="Calibri"><br>
</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font><font size="2" color="#0082bf" face="Calibri"><br>
"slicing the CADUs asynchronously into encoder-input-sized blocks,
encoding them with a channel code as specified in references [1], [2],
and [3], producing modulation symbols corresponding to the encoded block,
prepending a Physical Layer (PL) frame (PLFRAME) header, and optionally
inserting pilot symbols <sup>1</sup> within the modulations <br>
symbols of the non-header part of the PLFRAME." </font><font size="2" face="Calibri"><br>
</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font><font size="2" face="Calibri"><br>
So far, so good, but then footnote <sup>1</sup> says:</font><font size="2" face="Calibri">
</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"><br>
</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font><font size="2" color="#0082bf" face="Calibri"><sup><br>
1</sup> For systems compliant with CCSDS 131.2-B-1 and CCSDS 131.3-B-1,
see relevant standard. <b><i>For systems compliant with CCSDS 131.0-B-2
further work is needed.</i></b> </font><font size="2" face="Calibri"><br>
</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font><font size="2" face="Calibri"><br>
So it appears that for the very coding spec for which we really need an
unambiguous specification, i.e. TM S&CC, this document is silent.
I think this is rather odd, since that should be the whole focus of this
book. <br>
</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font><font size="2" face="Calibri"><br>
In Annex B1, which is admittedly marked as Informative, it says:</font><font size="2" face="Calibri">
</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"><br>
</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font><font size="2" color="#0082bf" face="Calibri"><br>
Pilot Symbols DVB-S2: <b>36 pilot syms, every
1440 syms
</b>SCCC:<b> 16 pilot syms, every 540 syms</b></font><font size="2" face="Calibri">
</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"><br>
</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font><font size="2" face="Calibri"><br>
This table does not specify what the comparable CCSDS 431.1-R-0 recommendation
is, nor does it say which of these two Pilot Symbol (really pilot frame
structure) options are recommended. And, as I recall, not only are
the pilot symbol and physical frame sizes different in [2] and [4], as
stated,, but the pilot symbols themselves are also different in some small
way. I may have mis-remembered this and did not take the time to
dig out that detail. It seems to me that there is not really a CCSDS
431.1-R-0 recommendation, at least not one stated in clear and unambiguous
terms.</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font><font size="2" face="Calibri"><br>
</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font><font size="2" face="Calibri"><br>
As a final note, and I don't know why I missed making this point explicitly
on first reading, but this is cast as a Magenta Book, a recommended practice.
And yet it does not have a firm recommendation for exactly the topic
where one is most needed, it says that "further work is needed".
Furthermore, if it really did have a firm and unambiguously stated
recommendation it would then really be a Blue Book "</font><font size="2" color="#0082bf" face="Calibri">complete,
unambiguous and at a sufficient level of technical detail that they can
be directly implemented and used for space-mission interoperability and
cross support.</font><font size="2" face="Calibri">" If it does
less than this it really is not meeting its stated purpose.</font><font size="2" face="Calibri">
</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"><br>
</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font><font size="2" face="Calibri"><br>
So, to return to you comment 1., while adding those missing "security/SANA/patents"
sections is necessary, it is not sufficient. The SANA, by the way,
is a perfect place to record those Sec 3.3 VCM Mode Tables so that they
may be extended when needed. And, in contrast to your comment 3.,
where you suggest that we leave this Magenta Book topic to the Agency Review,
I think that this is a CCSDS procedural matter that the Agencies will not
be sensitive to. In fact, I would be willing to bet that if we sent
this document out, in its present form, that there would not be one single
RID from a "normal" agency reviewer that would even touch on
these topics, but that they might well notice the ambiguities and the vagueness
just discussed. This matter of Blue and Magenta books, and what their
proper contents is, just does not matter to them. It does matter
to us, or should.</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font><font size="2" face="Calibri"><br>
</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font><font size="2" face="Calibri"><br>
I think if you look in the notes in the marked up review document that
you will see that all of these topics were touched upon in the conditions
already provided. As much as I would like to see this document sent
out for review I do not think it acceptable to do so until these conditions
are addressed in some affirmative way. I do not know if your WG can
deal with these conditions in time to complete a review prior to the Fall
Meeting, but I do believe that they must be addressed prior to the Agency
Review. </font><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font><font size="2" face="Calibri"><br>
</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font><font size="2" face="Calibri"><br>
Best regards, Peter</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font><font size="2" face="Calibri"><br>
</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font><font size="2" face="Calibri"><br>
</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font><font size="3" face="Calibri"><b><br>
From: </b>"<a href="mailto:Massimo.Bertinelli@esa.int">Massimo.Bertinelli@esa.int</a>" <<a href="mailto:Massimo.Bertinelli@esa.int">Massimo.Bertinelli@esa.int</a>><b><br>
Date: </b>Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 1:44 AM<b><br>
To: </b>Peter Shames <<a href="mailto:peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov">peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov</a>><b><br>
Cc: </b>Gian Paolo Calzolari <<a href="mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int">Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int</a>>, Tom
Gannett <<a href="mailto:thomas.gannett@tgannett.net">thomas.gannett@tgannett.net</a>>, "<a href="mailto:Enrico.Vassallo@esa.int">Enrico.Vassallo@esa.int</a>"
<<a href="mailto:Enrico.Vassallo@esa.int">Enrico.Vassallo@esa.int</a>><b><br>
Subject: </b>Re: Fwd: Results of CESG Polls closing 1 August 2017</font><font size="2" face="Calibri">
</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"><br>
</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font><font size="2" face="sans-serif"><br>
Dear Peter,</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font><font size="2" face="sans-serif"><br>
<br>
thank you for the comments you provided for the "Variable coding protocol"
book.</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font><font size="2" face="sans-serif"><br>
Coming to your main points:</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font><font size="2" face="sans-serif"><br>
<br>
1. I suppose Tom could include the generic annexes (for security/SANA/patents)
even though I don't expect this will add anything (the book simply refers
to other <br>
books where these aspects have been already treated).</font><font size="2" face="Calibri">
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif"><br>
<br>
2. In our opinion, the definition of pilots is quite clear. For SCCC and
DVB-S2 pilots are clearly defined in the relevant standard as explained
in 3.1 and recapped <br>
in Annex B. For the other codes, it is under study as stated in
3.1.</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font><font size="2" face="sans-serif"><br>
<br>
3. I'm afraid this comment is not understood, I suggest that a discussion
on this point (relationship between the Magenta and the other standards)
is deferred to the</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font><font size="2" face="sans-serif"><br>
Agency Review, where reviewers will have the chance to formulate
their RIDs on this (and other) points</font><font size="2" face="Calibri">
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif"><br>
<br>
4. CSS service management is not mentioned in any other Book of the SLS
area, to the best of my knowledge, so I don't see why it should be done
for this one.</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font><font size="2" face="sans-serif"><br>
Beside, as far as I know, the relative Blue Book has been retired
and only a Green Book is currently available.</font><font size="2" face="Calibri">
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif"><br>
Finally, please consider that the Managed Parameters section is
always valid, in any configuration, even when cross-support is not required.
As such, I disagree</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font><font size="2" face="sans-serif"><br>
about the need to reference CSS service management.</font><font size="2" face="Calibri">
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif"><br>
<br>
Finally, I assume it is in the interested of everybody to have the Review
closed in time for the Fall meeting, to avoid delaying the Book till next
year. It is my understanding</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font><font size="2" face="sans-serif"><br>
that this will require a close-out of the poll in the next couple of weeks.
I hope our replies can satisfy enough to proceed with this.</font><font size="2" face="Calibri">
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif"><br>
<br>
Best regards,</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font><font size="2" face="sans-serif"><br>
Massimo</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font><font size="2" face="sans-serif"><br>
<br>
<br>
---------------------------------------------------<br>
Massimo Bertinelli<br>
Communication Systems Engineer<br>
ESA/Estec<br>
<br>
Tel. +31 (0)71 5653435<br>
--------------------------------------------------</font><font size="2" face="Calibri">
<br>
<br>
</font><font size="1" color="#5f5f5f" face="sans-serif"><br>
<br>
From: </font><font size="1" face="sans-serif">Thomas
Gannett <<a href="mailto:thomas.gannett@tgannett.net">thomas.gannett@tgannett.net</a>></font><font size="2" face="Calibri">
</font><font size="1" color="#5f5f5f" face="sans-serif"><br>
To: </font><font size="1" face="sans-serif"><a href="mailto:Massimo.Bertinelli@esa.int">Massimo.Bertinelli@esa.int</a></font><font size="2" face="Calibri">
</font><font size="1" color="#5f5f5f" face="sans-serif"><br>
Cc: </font><font size="1" face="sans-serif"><a href="mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int">Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int</a>,
<a href="mailto:andrews@shannon.jpl.nasa.gov">andrews@shannon.jpl.nasa.gov</a>, <a href="mailto:dennis.k.lee@jpl.nasa.gov">dennis.k.lee@jpl.nasa.gov</a>, <a href="mailto:Enrico.Vassallo@esa.int">Enrico.Vassallo@esa.int</a>,
<a href="mailto:Gilles.Moury@cnes.fr">Gilles.Moury@cnes.fr</a></font><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font><font size="1" color="#5f5f5f" face="sans-serif"><br>
Date: </font><font size="1" face="sans-serif">08/02/2017
10:45 PM</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font><font size="1" color="#5f5f5f" face="sans-serif"><br>
Subject: </font><font size="1" face="sans-serif">Fwd:
Results of CESG Polls closing 1 August 2017</font><font size="2" face="Calibri">
</font>
<div align="center">
<hr noshade=""></div>
<br><font size="2" face="Calibri"><br>
<br>
</font><font size="2" face="Courier New"><br>
<br>
Dear Massimo:<br>
<br>
The CESG approval poll to release CCSDS 431.1-R-1, Variable Coded <br>
Modulation Protocol (Red Book, Issue 1) for CCSDS Agency review <br>
concluded with conditions. The conditions are stated in the poll results
below.<br>
<br>
Please respond directly to the ADs who voted to approve with <br>
conditions--and CC the Secretariat--with proposed dispositions for <br>
the conditions.<br>
<br>
Attached to this message are relevant poll attachments as well as the <br>
Word file used to generate the CESG approval copy. Please use the <br>
Word file to make changes in response to the conditions.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
Tom<br>
<br>
<br>
>CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2017-07-001 Approval to release CCSDS
<br>
>431.1-R-1, Variable Coded Modulation Protocol (Red Book, Issue 1) <br>
>for CCSDS Agency review<br>
>Results of CESG poll beginning 18 July 2017 and ending 1 August 2017:<br>
><br>
> Abstain:
0 (0%)<br>
> Approve Unconditionally: 6 (85.71%) (Barkley, Merri, Burleigh,
<br>
> Cola, Calzolari, He)<br>
> Approve with Conditions: 1 (14.29%) (Shames)<br>
> Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)<br>
><br>
>CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:<br>
><br>
>Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions): See attached PID form and <br>
>marked up document. There are a few items that should be cleaned up
<br>
>before this is sent out for agency review.<br>
><br>
>Here is a high level summary:<br>
><br>
>1) The SANA, Security, and Patent Annexes are missing.<br>
>2) The explicit definitions of pilots appears ambiguous (pg 3-1)<br>
>3) Some of the explanations of the relationships among this doc, and
<br>
>[2] and [4] could be clearer. See pos 1-1, 3-1, 3-2, and Annex B.<br>
>4) Sec 4 could reference, even if in passing, that these "Managed
<br>
>Parameters", in a compliant CCSDS cross support deployment, would
be <br>
>handled by CCSDS Service Management.<br>
><br>
>Scott Burleigh (Approve Unconditionally): No conditions, but three
<br>
>comments. (1) On page 1-2, I think it would be good to define "ASM".
<br>
>(2) On page 2-1, I would have liked to have seen a note on why this
<br>
>protocol is not applicable to uplink. (3) On page 4-1: a personal <br>
>preference, I think "static" would be better than "permanent".<br>
><br>
><br>
>Total Respondents: 7<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 <br>
>conditions have been addressed<br>
><br>
<br>
Thomas Gannett<br>
<a href="mailto:thomas.gannett@tgannett.net">thomas.gannett@tgannett.net</a><br>
+1 443 472 0805 [attachment "431x1r0_CESG_Approval-SEA.pdf" deleted
by Massimo Bertinelli/estec/ESA] [attachment "CESG-P-2017-07-001_PID_form
431x1-SEA.txt" deleted by Massimo Bertinelli/estec/ESA] [attachment
"431x1r0_CESG_Approval.doc" deleted by Massimo Bertinelli/estec/ESA]
<br>
This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee
or addressees only.</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </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="2" face="Calibri"> </font><font size="2" face="Courier New"><br>
content is not permitted.</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </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="2" face="Calibri"> </font><font size="2" face="Courier New"><br>
Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the sender.</font><font size="2" face="Calibri">
</font><font size="2" face="Courier New"><br>
</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font><font size="2" face="Courier New"><br>
Please consider the environment before printing this email.</font><font size="2" face="Calibri">
</font><font size="2" face="Courier New"><br>
</font><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </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><font size="2" face="Courier New"> </font>
<br>
</div></blockquote><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></body></html>