<html>
<body>
Dear CESG Members,<br><br>
Conditions for approval of CCSDS 211.2-P-2.1, Proximity-1 Space Link
Protocol—Coding and Synchronization Sublayer (Pink Sheets, Issue 2.1,
February 2019) have been disposed to the satisfaction of the AD(s) who
voted to approve with conditions. The Secretariat will now proceed with
CMC polling to authorize release for Agency review.<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">To:
Massimo.Bertinelli@esa.int<br>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Results of CESG Polls closing 8 February 2019<br>
From: Mario.Merri@esa.int<br>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 09:43:13 +0100<br><br>
The proposed change does satisfy my condition. Thank you Massimo.
<br><br>
Regards, <br><br>
__Mario <br><br>
<br><br>
From: Massimo
Bertinelli/estec/ESA <br>
To: CCSDS Secretariat
<thomas.gannett@tgannett.net>, Mario Merri/esoc/ESA@ESA <br>
Cc: Gian Paolo
Calzolari/esoc/ESA@ESA, "Greg Kazz"
<Greg.J.Kazz@jpl.nasa.gov>, miles.gannett@logothete.net <br>
Date: 17/02/2019 13:24 <br>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Results of
CESG Polls closing 8 February 2019 <br>
<br>
<br><br>
<br>
Dear Tom and Mario, <br><br>
the WG proposes the following change to 3.6.4: <br><br>
The C&S sublayer shall use the Frame Length Field <i>and the Transfer
Frame Version Number (TFVN)</i> in the Transfer Frame Header of the
Transfer Frame to locate the position of the CRC-32 field in the PLTU.
<br>
<br>
Would this satisfy Mario's condition? <br>
In case, Tom, could you please use it for an update version of the book
for the Agency Review? <br><br>
Best regards, <br>
Massimo<br><br>
<br>
---------------------------------------------------<br>
Massimo Bertinelli<br>
Communication Systems Engineer<br>
ESA/Estec<br><br>
Tel. +31 (0)71 5653435<br>
-------------------------------------------------- <br><br>
<br>
-----CCSDS Secretariat
<<a href="mailto:thomas.gannett@tgannett.net"><u>
thomas.gannett@tgannett.net</a></u>> wrote: ----- <br>
To:
<a href="mailto:Massimo.Bertinelli@esa.int"><u>
Massimo.Bertinelli@esa.int</a></u><br>
From: CCSDS Secretariat
<<a href="mailto:thomas.gannett@tgannett.net"><u>
thomas.gannett@tgannett.net</a></u>><br>
Date: 02/10/2019 08:01PM<br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:Mario.Merri@esa.int"><u>Mario.Merri@esa.int</a></u>,
"<a href="mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int"><u>
Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int</a></u>"
<<a href="mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int"><u>
Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int</a></u>>,
<a href="mailto:Greg.J.Kazz@jpl.nasa.gov"><u>Greg.J.Kazz@jpl.nasa.gov</a>
</u>,
<a href="mailto:miles.gannett@logothete.net"><u>
miles.gannett@logothete.net</a></u><br>
Subject: Fwd: Results of CESG Polls closing 8 February 2019<br><br>
Dear Massimo:<br><br>
The CESG poll to approve release of CCSDS <br>
211.2-P-2.1, Proximity-1 Space Link <br>
ProtocolCoding and Synchronization Sublayer <br>
(Pink Sheets, Issue 2.1) for CCSDS Agency review concluded with
conditions.<br><br>
Please negotiate dispositions directly with the <br>
AD who voted to approve with conditions and CC <br>
the Secretariat on all related correspondence.<br><br>
Best regards,<br>
Tom<br><br>
<br>
>Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2019 13:40:28 -0500<br>
>To:
<a href="mailto:cesg-all@mailman.ccsds.org"><u>
cesg-all@mailman.ccsds.org</a></u><br>
>From: CCSDS Secretariat
<<a href="mailto:thomas.gannett@tgannett.net"><u>
thomas.gannett@tgannett.net</a></u>><br>
>Subject: Results of CESG Polls closing 8 February 2019<br>
><br>
>CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2019-01-003 <br>
>Approval to release CCSDS 211.2-P-2.1, <br>
>Proximity-1 Space Link ProtocolCoding and <br>
>Synchronization Sublayer (Pink Sheets, Issue 2.1) for CCSDS Agency
review<br>
>Results of CESG poll beginning 25 January 2019 and ending 8 February
2019:<br>
><br>
>
Abstain: 0 (0%)<br>
> Approve Unconditionally: 4 (80%) (Barkley, Burleigh,
Calzolari, Wilmot)<br>
> Approve with Conditions: 1 (20%) (Merri)<br>
> Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)<br>
><br>
>CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:<br>
><br>
>Mario Merri (Approve with Conditions): The <br>
>largest change introduced seems to be the <br>
>addition of also Version 4 as possible transfer <br>
>frame in the PLTU. However in the PLTU I cannot <br>
>see any discriminant between TF v3 and v4. Is <br>
>this meant to be a pre-agreed decision in a <br>
>dedicated ICD not part of the standard? If so, <br>
>would not be more interoperable to add a flag in <br>
>the PLTU that allows automatic identification of the TF version
number?<br>
><br>
><br>
>Total Respondents: 5<br>
>No response was received from the following Area(s):<br>
><br>
>SEA<br>
><br>
>SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with
Conditions<br>
>PROPOSED SECRETARIAT
ACTION:
Generate <br>
>CMC poll after conditions have been addressed<br><br>
<br><br>
<pre>This message is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. It
may contain proprietary information and/or
protected content. Any unauthorised disclosure, use, retention or
dissemination is prohibited. If you have received
this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately. ESA applies
appropriate organisational measures to protect
personal data, in case of data privacy queries, please contact the ESA
Data Protection Officer (dpo@esa.int).
</pre></blockquote>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
Thomas Gannett<br>
thomas.gannett@tgannett.net<br>
+1 443 472 0805</body>
</html>