<span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">Peter,</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
just to be clear I never asked to revert from layer
to stratus.</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">I simply remark
that the straight replacement (e.g. a la WinWord) stratus --> layer
does create new issues as e.g. the identification on an Aperture Layer.</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">Actually I found
that the document could live taking away strata and just deleting those
parts that indeed refer mostly to functions (that is most likely the best
seller term in that document) are likely to solve the issue. This is what
I proposed in my comments to John.</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">Defining sub layers
can be an artifact that may look as a solution but as well can create new
confusion if "invented" in a document without a real relationship
with other documents.</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">If the envisaged
solution is to define an Aperture sub layer and a Modulation sub layer
within the Physical Layer, I do recommend consulting the RFM WG on this.</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">That's all for
my European evening</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">Best regards &
stay healthy</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">Gippo</span>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:sans-serif">From:
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:sans-serif">"Shames,
Peter M (US 312B)" <peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov></span>
<br><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:sans-serif">To:
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:sans-serif">"Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int"
<Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int></span>
<br><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:sans-serif">Cc:
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:sans-serif">"cesg@mailman.ccsds.org"
<cesg@mailman.ccsds.org>, "Thomas Gannett" <thomas.gannett@tgannett.net></span>
<br><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:sans-serif">Date:
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:sans-serif">15-03-21
19:31</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:sans-serif">Subject:
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family: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>
<br>
<hr noshade>
<br>
<br>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Hi
Gippo,</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">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.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Here
is a short summary of that analysis:</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">1.
</span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">The
BRM concerns itself with “</span><span style=" font-size:11pt;color:#0082bf;font-family:Calibri"><b>terrestrial
systems of terminals, computers, and associated devices for transferring
information among them</b></span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">”.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">2.
</span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">The
BRM defines and extensively uses the term “Layer”.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">3.
</span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">The
BRM makes no mention of “strata” nor “stratum”.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">4.
</span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Using
that term stratum to rename what is already defined as a layer in the ISO
BRM is just plain confusing.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">5.
</span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">The
BRM makes no mention of aperture or ground station but the Physical Layer
is defined as “</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:#4181c0"><b>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. “</b></span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">6.
</span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">This
is a perfectly serviceable definition of the functions that an “aperture”
provides for either RF or optical communications at the Physical Layer.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">7.
</span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">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.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">8.
</span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">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”.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">9.
</span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">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.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">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.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Regards,
Peter</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri"><b>From:
</b>Gian Paolo Calzolari <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int><b><br>
Date: </b>Friday, March 12, 2021 at 2:35 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></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">Peter,</span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">
</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><br>
actually I received the "publication package"
from Tom.</span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><br>
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><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">
<br>
</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><br>
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><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">
<br>
</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><br>
My major issue is the straight replacement of strata with layers. <br>
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><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"><br>
</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><br>
The other findings are minor or even just additional information for the
book editor.</span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> <br>
</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><br>
IMO, resubmitting this big document to CESG would not be according to rules
but it would be according to the spirit to </span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> “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>
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:Arial"><br>
From: </span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial">"Shames,
Peter M (US 312B)" <peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov></span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:Arial"><br>
To: </span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial">"Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int"
<Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int></span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:Arial"><br>
Cc: </span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial">"cesg@mailman.ccsds.org"
<cesg@mailman.ccsds.org>, "Thomas Gannett" <thomas.gannett@tgannett.net></span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:Arial"><br>
Date: </span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial">11-03-21
22:04</span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:Arial"><br>
Subject: </span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial">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><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">
</span></p>
<div align=center>
<hr noshade></div>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:240px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt">Dear
Gippo,</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt">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”.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt">I
did, by the way, say that I was guilty of missing this issue the first
time around:</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt">“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”</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt">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.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt">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.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt">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. </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt">Best
regards, Peter</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt;color:#004080"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma"><b>From:</b>
Shames, Peter M (US 312B) [</span><a href=mailto:peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:#813f62;font-family:Tahoma"><u>mailto:peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma">]
<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:10pt;color:#813f62;font-family:Tahoma"><u>Holger.Dreihahn@esa.int</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma">;
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></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt">Dear
Erik, Holger, Tom, et al,</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt">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. </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt">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.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">1.
</span><span style=" font-size:12pt">Ability
to provide an “SLE-like” forward link service for synchronous link protocols,
initially AOS, but now to include USLP</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">2.
</span><span style=" font-size:12pt">Provide
encoding in the ESLT for this forward link frame stream</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">3.
</span><span style=" font-size:12pt">Ability
to accept input frame streams from more than one user source</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">4.
</span><span style=" font-size:12pt">Ability
to multiplex frame streams from all of the input sources, including some
that are not directly from FF-CSTS itself</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">5.
</span><span style=" font-size:12pt">Ability
to keep a synchronous forward link filled, if necessary by inserting fill
frames in the ESLT</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">6.
</span><span style=" font-size:12pt">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)</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt">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.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt">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.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt">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.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt">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.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt">Accordingly,
I cannot support publishing this document in its current form.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt">With
respect, Peter Shames</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt;color:#004080"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"><b>From:
</b>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></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt">Dear
John,</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt">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”.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt">I
consider my PID to poll </span><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:#4f4f4f;font-family:Segoe UI">CESG-P-2020-12-006</span><span style=" font-size:12pt">
to be resolved and agree to having the revised document published in its
modified form.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt">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.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt">Thanks,
Peter</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"><b>From:
</b>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></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt">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.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt">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.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt">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. </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt">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.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt">Best
regards,</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt">John</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"><b> </b></span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"><b> </b></span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"><b>From:
</b>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></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">Peter,</span><span style=" font-size:12pt">
</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><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:12pt">
</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><br>
I do not know whether anybody else in CESG (apart from CSS AD and DAD,
I would guess) could see them.</span><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><br>
<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:12pt"> </span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><br>
However, never mind.</span><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><br>
<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:12pt">
</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><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><span style=" font-size:12pt">
</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><br>
<br>
I am reporting what I see as an issue with "heavy" changes after
"heavy" Conditions.</span><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><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:12pt">
</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><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><span style=" font-size:12pt">
</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><br>
<br>
If nobody else can see this issue except me, then... peace and love.</span><span style=" font-size:12pt">
</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><br>
<br>
Best regards</span><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><br>
<br>
Gian Paolo</span><span style=" font-size:12pt"> <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:Arial"><br>
<br>
From: </span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial">"Shames,
Peter M (US 312B)" <peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov></span><span style=" font-size:12pt">
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:Arial"><br>
To: </span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial">"Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int"
<Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int>, "cesg@mailman.ccsds.org"
<cesg@mailman.ccsds.org></span><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:Arial"><br>
Cc: </span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial">"Thomas
Gannett" <thomas.gannett@tgannett.net></span><span style=" font-size:12pt">
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:Arial"><br>
Date: </span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial">11-03-21
00:10</span><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:Arial"><br>
Subject: </span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial">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><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<div align=center>
<hr noshade></div>
<p style=";margin-Bottom:3600px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt">Hi
Gippo,</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt">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></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt">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></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt">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></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt">So,
just what exactly is the problem here?</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt">Peter</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"><b>From:
</b>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></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">Dear
All,</span><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><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:12pt"> </span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><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:12pt"> </span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><br>
Frankly speaking I think there is something very wrong in this approach.</span><span style=" font-size:12pt">
</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><br>
<br>
Best regards</span><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><br>
<br>
Gian Paolo</span><span style=" font-size:12pt"> <br>
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:Arial"><br>
<br>
<br>
From: </span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial">"Thomas
Gannett" <thomas.gannett@tgannett.net></span><span style=" font-size:12pt">
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:Arial"><br>
To: </span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial">cesg@mailman.ccsds.org</span><span style=" font-size:12pt">
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:Arial"><br>
Date: </span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial">07-03-21
16:48</span><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:Arial"><br>
Subject: </span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial">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:12pt"> </span><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:Arial"><br>
Sent by: </span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial">"CESG"
<cesg-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org></span><span style=" font-size:12pt">
</span></p>
<div align=center>
<hr noshade></div>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Courier New"><br>
<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><span style=" font-size:12pt;color:blue"><u><br>
</u></span><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:10pt;color:blue;font-family:Courier New"><u>https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cesg</u></span></a>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Courier New">This
message is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. It may contain
proprietary information and/or</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Courier New">protected
content. Any unauthorised disclosure, use, retention or dissemination is
prohibited. If you have received</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Courier New">this
e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately. ESA applies appropriate
organisational measures to protect</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Courier New">personal
data, in case of data privacy queries, please contact the ESA Data Protection
Officer (dpo@esa.int).</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Courier New">This
message is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. It may contain
proprietary information and/or</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Courier New">protected
content. Any unauthorised disclosure, use, retention or dissemination is
prohibited. If you have received</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Courier New">this
e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately. ESA applies appropriate
organisational measures to protect</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Courier New">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></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Courier New">This
message is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. It may contain
proprietary information and/or</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Courier New">protected
content. Any unauthorised disclosure, use, retention or dissemination is
prohibited. If you have received</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Courier New">this
e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately. ESA applies appropriate
organisational measures to protect</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Courier New">personal
data, in case of data privacy queries, please contact the ESA Data Protection
Officer (dpo@esa.int).</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"></p>
<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>