<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Times;
panose-1:0 0 5 0 0 0 0 2 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Segoe UI";
panose-1:2 11 5 2 4 2 4 2 2 3;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New",serif;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:1311786040;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:59300874 67698705 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-text:"%1\)";
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="EmailStyle21">Hi Gippo,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="EmailStyle21"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="EmailStyle21">I just got the details of this issue you raised forwarded from John. I can forward the rather lengthy analysis that I sent back to him, which mostly extracted definitions from the Basic Reference Model (known
as the ISO BRM) ISO/IEC 7498-1, the edition republished in 1996.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="EmailStyle21"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="EmailStyle21">Here is a short summary of that analysis:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">The BRM concerns itself with
<span style="color:black">“</span><b><span style="color:#0070C0">terrestrial systems of terminals, computers, and associated devices for transferring information among them</span></b><span style="color:black">”.</span><o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">The BRM defines and extensively uses the term “Layer”.<o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">The BRM makes no mention of “strata” nor “stratum”.<o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">Using that term stratum to rename what is already defined as a layer in the ISO BRM is just plain confusing.<o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">The BRM makes no mention of aperture or ground station but the Physical Layer is defined as “<b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;color:#2E75B6;background:white">The
Physical Layer provides the mechanical, electrical, functional and procedural means to activate, maintain, and de-activate physical-connections for bit transmission between data-link-entities. “</span></b><o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">This is a perfectly serviceable definition of the functions that an “aperture” provides for either RF or optical communications at the Physical Layer.<o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">We (CCSDS) do describe the roles of ground stations and terminals and apertures, but we do not tend to explicitly define them. They are used, but not formally defined, in the RF&M
401 document, and in the SCCS-ARD and Nav standards.<o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">The way that we use those terms, Earth Station or Aperture, for either RF or optical comms, is entirely consistent with the ISO BRM definition of “Physical Layer”.<o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">Just as “modulation”, which is not defined in the ISO BRM, is treated as a “sub-layer” of the Physical Layer, I think it entirely appropriate to treat the “aperture” as a sub-layer
of the Physical Layer.<o:p></o:p></li></ol>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So I agree with you. Calling the aperture an “aperture layer” is a mis-statement. On the other hand, calling it a “sub-layer of the Physical Layer” is entirely appropriate, and this fits both within the ISO BRM and is consistent with the
nearly identical definition we have adopted for the modulation sub-layer of the Physical Layer.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Regards, Peter<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">From: </span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">Gian Paolo Calzolari <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int><br>
<b>Date: </b>Friday, March 12, 2021 at 2:35 AM<br>
<b>To: </b>Peter Shames <peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov><br>
<b>Cc: </b>CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg@mailman.ccsds.org>, Tom Gannett <thomas.gannett@tgannett.net><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [CESG] CESG-P-2020-12-006 Approval to publish CCSDS 922.3-B-1, Cross Support Transfer Service—Forward Frame Service ( Blue Book, Issue 1)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Peter,</span>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> actually I received the "publication package" from Tom.</span>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Actually your file is named differently from the one in that package, but I am not going to investigate the difference also because I provided some comment to Johh Pietras based on the file I got
from Tom.</span> <br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">I provided the comments on a friendly basis making clear to John that (according to rules) there is "no obligation to accept any of them."</span>
<br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">My major issue is the straight replacement of strata with layers.
</span><br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">First this introduce an "Aperture Layer" I never heard before and then it also introduces many consistency concerns with other document statements that talk about functions.
</span><br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">The other findings are minor or even just additional information for the book editor.</span>
<br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">IMO, resubmitting this big document to CESG would not be according to rules but it would be according to the spirit to
</span> “produce the most useful, clear, and unambiguous standards” <br>
<br>
I wish you all a nice week end. <br>
<br>
Gian Paolo <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#5F5F5F">From: </span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">"Shames, Peter M (US 312B)" <peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov></span>
<br>
<span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#5F5F5F">To: </span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">"Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int" <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int></span>
<br>
<span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#5F5F5F">Cc: </span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">"cesg@mailman.ccsds.org" <cesg@mailman.ccsds.org>, "Thomas Gannett" <thomas.gannett@tgannett.net></span>
<br>
<span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#5F5F5F">Date: </span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">11-03-21 22:04</span>
<br>
<span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#5F5F5F">Subject: </span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [CESG] CESG-P-2020-12-006 Approval to publish CCSDS 922.3-B-1, Cross Support Transfer
Service—Forward Frame Service ( Blue Book, Issue 1)</span> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center">
<hr size="0" width="100%" noshade="" style="color:#A0A0A0" align="center">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in">Dear Gippo,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in">Somehow it appears that you are more concerned with “follow the process to the letter” than you are on “produce the most useful, clear, and unambiguous standards”.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in">I did, by the way, say that I was guilty of missing this issue the first time around:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in">“the CESG failed to catch it earlier. <b><i>I point the finger at myself here</i></b>, since I had the opportunity to catch the issue earlier”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in">I also admit to being late with my inputs. The WG could have taken the “stand on ceremony” and “follow the process to the letter” approach, or just told me “too late”. Instead they looked at this request, apparently realized that I was
correct, and fixed it.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in">I’m attaching there updates here just so you all get to see what was, in fact, changed. It’s not intended to be a secret. Some of the other communications were sent to the CESG and the key one that initiated this is copied below for
easy reference.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in">For my part I am glad that this was resolved in a way that produced a clear, unambiguous, standard that documents just what it is that the IOAG SISG requested. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in">Best regards, Peter<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"><span style="color:#004080"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif"> Shames, Peter M (US 312B) [</span><a href="mailto:peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:#813F62">mailto:peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov</span></a><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">]
<b><br>
Sent:</b> Friday, January 15, 2021 7:49 PM<b><br>
To:</b> Barkley, Erik J (US 3970); </span><a href="mailto:Holger.Dreihahn@esa.int"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:#813F62">Holger.Dreihahn@esa.int</span></a><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">;
Tom Gannett<b><br>
Cc:</b> CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec<b><br>
Subject:</b> Late input from SEA on the CESG-P-2020-02-006 CSTS FF poll</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in">Dear Erik, Holger, Tom, et al,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in">Please accept this late input from SEA on this poll. I took the time to actually review the spec in some detail and it took rather longer than I expected. I was hoping that this FF-CSTS spec would meet all of the planned requirements
for this forward frame service. Unless I somehow overlooked some important features that are documented deep in the bowels of this 218 page specification I am afraid that I have to conclude that it has missed the mark. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in">The “mark” in my understanding, is that this spec was supposed to define the list of features that follows below. These are drawn from the original SISG Space Internetworking Strategy report that first defined the features of this forward
frame service intended to accommodate DTN (and IP) traffic, from the SCCS-ARD/ADD where these features were documented in the context of the rest of the CCSDS protocol stacks and Earth Space Link Terminal (ESLT, otherwise known as a ground station plus its
associated control center elements), and the features that already existed in the EF-CLTU Orange Book that was created because there was no other documented service for handling the synchronous AOS frame protocol for forward links.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">1. </span>Ability to provide an “SLE-like” forward link service for synchronous link protocols, initially AOS, but now to include USLP<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">2. </span>Provide encoding in the ESLT for this forward link frame stream<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">3. </span>Ability to accept input frame streams from more than one user source<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">4. </span>Ability to multiplex frame streams from all of the input sources, including some that are not directly from FF-CSTS itself<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">5. </span>Ability to keep a synchronous forward link filled, if necessary by inserting fill frames in the ESLT<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">6. </span>Ability to integrate the protocol PDUs from DTN, IP, CFDP, or other data sources, from “agents” instantiated in the ESLT, to create frames that encapsulate
these PDUs, and to integrate these in the multiplexed frame stream (see items 3 & 4)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in">As best I can tell this spec fails to accomplish items 5 and 6 at all, and it appears to give only passing acknowledgement to items 2 or 4. These are mentioned as being features that are needed somewhere in the ESLT, but there is not
a section of the document, nor even an informative annex, let alone a normative one, that would suggest what was really intended nor how to accomplish it. In my judgement this is a significant oversight and renders this document inadequate to the task at
hand which was to document how these services were to be provisioned and integrated.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in">Unfortunately, from my point of view, instead of addressing these absolutely required services the document as presented spends a lot of “real estate” documenting how this new service can be made to handle TC forward asynchronous frames.
Since there is already a perfectly serviceable SLE F-CLTU that provides this service this seems like an unnecessary effort. The only conceivable rationale that occurs to me is that this TC forward service is very much like that needed for USLP variable length
frame forward service. That said, I really have to question whether it would have been better to just modify SLE F-CLTU to accommodate USLP variable length frames instead of weighing this document down with this added baggage.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in">It appears that in this document we got far fewer of the essential features than were required and, at the same time, more features than were really useful.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in">While I recognize that a large amount of work has been expended to get this document to this point, in my estimation it falls far short of what is really required. It does not provide all of the features called for in the IOAG SISG, nor
that were documented in the SCCS-ARD Magenta Book, nor does it appear to provide all of the features in the F-CLTU Orange Book which has for years been supporting major operational missions. It was intended to provide services that could meet all of these
requirements, and it seems to have failed to do so.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in">Accordingly, I cannot support publishing this document in its current form.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in">With respect, Peter Shames<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"><span style="color:#004080"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt">From: </span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Peter Shames <peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov><b><br>
Date: </b>Thursday, March 4, 2021 at 1:34 PM<b><br>
To: </b>John Pietras <john.pietras@gst.com><b><br>
Cc: </b>Erik Barkley <erik.j.barkley@jpl.nasa.gov>, "Holger.Dreihahn@esa.int" <Holger.Dreihahn@esa.int>, Wolfgang Hell <wo_._he@t-online.de>, Tim Pham <timothy.t.pham@jpl.nasa.gov>, "Neutze, Robert L. (MSFC-EO60)[CSC - HOSC]" <robert.l.neutze@nasa.gov>, "Clement.Leclerc@cnes.fr"
<Clement.Leclerc@cnes.fr>, "Liao, Jason C (US 333F)" <jason.c.liao@jpl.nasa.gov>, Tom Gannett <thomas.gannett@tgannett.net><b><br>
Subject: </b>Re: [EXTERNAL] Response to CSEG Review comments on the FF-CSTS candidate Blue Book</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in">Dear John,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in">Always a wonderful opening to a letter, right? After looking over, in some detail, the proposed resolutions for the issues that I raised I am pleased to be able to state that you have addressed my concerns. I believe that the changes
have made the various distinctions among the different flavors of service provision clearer, and, more importantly from my PoV, have made the visible the assumptions that were “baked in”, but not expressed, in service production. This now provided visibility
to the multiplexing functions that are so essential to the proper functioning of this service as a key part of the future CCSDS ESLT “plumbing”.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in">I consider my PID to poll <span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif;color:#4F4F4F">
CESG-P-2020-12-006</span> to be resolved and agree to having the revised document published in its modified form.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in">I will note that some last minute massaging by Tom Gannett will likely be required, there were at least a couple of spelling errors noted in passing.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in">Thanks, Peter<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt">From: </span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt">John Pietras <john.pietras@gst.com><b><br>
Date: </b>Sunday, February 14, 2021 at 1:31 PM<b><br>
To: </b>Peter Shames <peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov><b><br>
Cc: </b>Erik Barkley <erik.j.barkley@jpl.nasa.gov>, "Holger.Dreihahn@esa.int" <Holger.Dreihahn@esa.int>, Wolfgang Hell <wo_._he@t-online.de>, Tim Pham <timothy.t.pham@jpl.nasa.gov>, "Neutze, Robert L. (MSFC-EO60)[CSC - HOSC]" <robert.l.neutze@nasa.gov>, "Clement.Leclerc@cnes.fr"
<Clement.Leclerc@cnes.fr>, "Liao, Jason C (US 333F)" <jason.c.liao@jpl.nasa.gov>, Tom Gannett <thomas.gannett@tgannett.net><b><br>
Subject: </b>[EXTERNAL] Response to CSEG Review comments on the FF-CSTS candidate Blue Book</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in">Peter, it’s taken a few weeks, but the CSTSWG has completed our response to your conditions and comments on the CSEG Review copy of the FF-CSTS candidate Blue Book. Erik has also reviewed and concurs with the response.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in">Attached are (a) an updated draft FF-CSTS book, containing the changes to the book that have resulted in response to your conditions/comments, and (b) a document that contains point-by-point responses to the comments that you made in your
email of 16 January to Erik, Holger, and Tom and in your marked-up copy of the CESG Approval version of the book.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in">Hopefully, between the changes that have been made and the explanations provided for questions that you had, your conditions for approval have been satisfied. Please contact me if you have any further questions or comments.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in">Tom G. – I’m copying you on this to keep you in the loop on where this book sits. Once the CSTSWG and Peter have come to agreement regarding removal of his conditions, I’ll send to you the final updated copy (if there any more changes),
the final response/resolution document, and the original artwork for the updated figures so that you can prepare the CMC approval version.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in">Best regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in">John<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"><b> </b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"><b> </b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt">From: </span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Gian Paolo Calzolari <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int><b><br>
Date: </b>Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 3:26 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: [EXTERNAL] Re: [CESG] CESG-P-2020-12-006 Approval to publish CCSDS 922.3-B-1, Cross Support Transfer Service—Forward Frame Service ( Blue Book, Issue 1)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Peter,</span>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><br>
the updates have been visible to me only when - following the announcement of conditions met - I asked them to Tom.</span>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><br>
I do not know whether anybody else in CESG (apart from CSS AD and DAD, I would guess) could see them.</span>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><br>
As I read your mail I perceive that everybody else (i.e. WG, CSS, other CESGers) is guilty but you.</span>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><br>
However, never mind.</span> <br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><br>
Clearly the rules only require to close condition and go ahead with next poll without more review from CESG.</span>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><br>
On the other hand the rules also require to vote during poll (and not after polls) and - as CESG agreed - to provide formal PIDs (this was discussed in order to give real visibility on conditions).</span>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><br>
I am reporting what I see as an issue with "heavy" changes after "heavy" Conditions.</span>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><br>
I would be curios about knowing who in CESG has been able to fully understand the requested changes and eventually to track the implemented changes.</span>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><br>
IMO, the mechanism of CESG conditions was thought to address changes with "reasonable/limited scope".
<br>
IMO, when changes exceed a "reasonable/limited scope" the document should return to CESG Poll (or even to Agency Review in some cases).</span>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><br>
If nobody else can see this issue except me, then... peace and love.</span> <br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><br>
Best regards</span> <br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><br>
Gian Paolo</span> <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#5F5F5F"><br>
From: </span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">"Shames, Peter M (US 312B)" <peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov></span>
<span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#5F5F5F"><br>
To: </span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">"Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int" <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int>, "cesg@mailman.ccsds.org" <cesg@mailman.ccsds.org></span>
<span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#5F5F5F"><br>
Cc: </span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">"Thomas Gannett" <thomas.gannett@tgannett.net></span>
<span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#5F5F5F"><br>
Date: </span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">11-03-21 00:10</span>
<span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#5F5F5F"><br>
Subject: </span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [CESG] CESG-P-2020-12-006 Approval to publish CCSDS 922.3-B-1, Cross Support Transfer Service—Forward Frame Service ( Blue Book, Issue 1)</span>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center">
<hr size="0" width="100%" noshade="" style="color:#A0A0A0" align="center">
</div>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:2.5in;margin-left:0in">
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Hi Gippo,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">I’m guessing that these necessary updates were “visible” to you, and the rest of the CESG, because you were able to state the magnitude of the required changes. Perhaps you are asking that the CESG be given
an opportunity to re-review the changes in response to the PID. I cannot tell because you did not address that issue. But the CESG did get to see the changes.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">In point of fact, the revisions do not make the document “heavily, nor completely different” from the document that was reviewed. What the changes do accomplish is to align the description of the service
with the functionality requested in the IOAG SISG report from years ago, which you, yourself, were a co-author of. What was required were not changes to the FF-CSTS service provisioning itself, but were clarifications to the service production that were
not otherwise documented anywhere aside from the IOAG SISG report and the SCCS-ARD. In the absence of these clarifications the functionality of the service, both provision (which is the core focus of the service exposed to users) and production (which are
the functions that must be executed to deliver full functionality of frame merging and DTN bundle agent and CFDP file agent integration) would be inadequately documented. It would have been left to the users to guess what production functionality was required
or supported. A massive source of ambiguity for a service that is to be the heart of DTN integration and support in the future ESLTs.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">What is wrong with this approach is that the WG failed to incorporate the description of these critical production functions in the first place, and that the CESG failed to catch it earlier. I point the
finger at myself here, since I had the opportunity to catch the issue earlier and did, in fact, point this concern out a couple of years ago. But then, I am only one of the six Area Directors. It appears that no one else, including you, who were one of the
authors of the IOAG SISG report that defined this new service, managed to catch this issue until now.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">So, just what exactly is the problem here?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Peter</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt">From: </span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt">CESG <cesg-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org> on behalf of Gian Paolo Calzolari <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int><b><br>
Date: </b>Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 7:35 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>[EXTERNAL] Re: [CESG] CESG-P-2020-12-006 Approval to publish CCSDS 922.3-B-1, Cross Support Transfer Service—Forward Frame Service ( Blue Book, Issue 1)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Dear All,</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><br>
I see that there is a 24 pages document only to explain which changes have been applied (to a 242 pages document) because of the (late) conditions.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><br>
<br>
The document that will go to CMC - in a way invisible to CESGers - is now heavily (if not completely) different from the one that was evaluated by CESG.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><br>
Frankly speaking I think there is something very wrong in this approach.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><br>
<br>
Best regards</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><br>
<br>
Gian Paolo</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> <br>
<br>
</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#5F5F5F"><br>
<br>
From: </span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">"Thomas Gannett" <thomas.gannett@tgannett.net></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#5F5F5F"><br>
To: </span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">cesg@mailman.ccsds.org</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#5F5F5F"><br>
Date: </span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">07-03-21 16:48</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#5F5F5F"><br>
Subject: </span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Re: [CESG] CESG-P-2020-12-006 Approval to publish CCSDS 922.3-B-1, Cross Support Transfer Service—Forward Frame Service ( Blue Book, Issue 1)</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#5F5F5F"><br>
Sent by: </span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">"CESG" <cesg-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center">
<hr size="0" width="100%" noshade="" style="color:#A0A0A0" align="center">
</div>
<p><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><br>
</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New",serif"><br>
<br>
Dear CESG Members,<br>
<br>
Conditions for approval of CCSDS 922.3-B-1, Cross <br>
Support Transfer Service—Forward Frame Service <br>
(Blue Book, Issue 1) have been disposed to the <br>
satisfaction of the AD(s) who voted to approve <br>
with conditions. The Secretariat will now proceed <br>
with CMC polling to authorize publication.<br>
<br>
Thomas Gannett<br>
thomas.gannett@tgannett.net<br>
+1 443 472 0805 [attachment "Re EXTERNAL Response to CSEG Review comments on the FF-CSTS candidate Blue Book.txt" deleted by Gian Paolo Calzolari/esoc/ESA] _______________________________________________<br>
CESG mailing list<br>
CESG@mailman.ccsds.org</span><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:blue"><br>
</span></u><a href="https://urldefense.us/v3/__https:/mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cesg__;!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!a0qSHP9p17UYLyqsbzP1_BZYMyQz3GAR0v2LqDlVHS-OzHnN8FyD9Bk09_eVYN-oeFQYTiX1$"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New",serif">https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cesg</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New",serif">This message is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. It may contain proprietary information and/or</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New",serif">protected content. Any unauthorised disclosure, use, retention or dissemination is prohibited. If you have received</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New",serif">this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately. ESA applies appropriate organisational measures to protect</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New",serif">personal data, in case of data privacy queries, please contact the ESA Data Protection Officer (dpo@esa.int).</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New",serif">This message is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. It may contain proprietary information and/or</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New",serif">protected content. Any unauthorised disclosure, use, retention or dissemination is prohibited. If you have received</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New",serif">this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately. ESA applies appropriate organisational measures to protect</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New",serif">personal data, in case of data privacy queries, please contact the ESA Data Protection Officer (dpo@esa.int).[attachment "922x3b0_CESG_Approval-PID_response_update-210207[1].doc"
deleted by Gian Paolo Calzolari/esoc/ESA] </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>This message is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. It may contain proprietary information and/or<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>protected content. Any unauthorised disclosure, use, retention or dissemination is prohibited. If you have received<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately. ESA applies appropriate organisational measures to protect<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>personal data, in case of data privacy queries, please contact the ESA Data Protection Officer (dpo@esa.int).<o:p></o:p></pre>
</div>
</body>
</html>