<span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">It looks I did not
complete part of the text about my comment on some misunderstanding
about the handling of VCM (intended as methods and not as 431.0-B) and
ACM.</span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif"> </span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">Please amend the
relevant text as follows:</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:blue;font-family:sans-serif">In
addition to this, I would like to better focus some misunderstanding about
the handling of VCM (intended as methods and not as 431.0-B) and
ACM.</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:blue;font-family:sans-serif">The
receiver does not change for VCM and ACM and does not depend on the duration
of the time interval in which a ModCod is applied.</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:red;font-family:sans-serif">What
changes between VCM and ACM is how the transmitter is instructed
to apply changes of ModCod; e.g. normally pre-programmed in VCM and with
feedback from the receiving side in ACM.</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:red;font-family:sans-serif">A ModCod
may remain constant for days. weeks, months (e.g. based on seasons, whether
forecast, etc.) or change "more frequently" even during the same
pass.</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:blue;font-family:sans-serif">In
case of ACM, the expectation is for a process external to the receiver
that - based on the SNR estimation etc, something provided by all receivers
on the market - decides how to instruct the transmitter to change ModCod
at intervals of second or (most likely) minutes. This kind of side process
(i.e. external to the VCM/ACM mechanism per-se) in a typical space
to ground configuration may interact with the sending spacecraft e.g sending
command with Forward Frame Service.</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"><br>
Best regards</span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif">
<br>
</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"><br>
Gian Paolo </span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif"><br>
</span>
<br>
<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">Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:sans-serif">To:
</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">Cc:
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:sans-serif">"Lee,
Dennis K\(US 332G\)" <dennis.k.lee@jpl.nasa.gov>, Gilles.Moury@cnes.fr,
"Andrews, Kenneth S\(332B\)" <Kenneth.S.Andrews@jpl.nasa.gov>,
Enrico.Vassallo@esa.int, "SEA-SA" <sea-sa@mailman.ccsds.org></span>
<br><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:sans-serif">Date:
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:sans-serif">10-03-21
16:09</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:sans-serif">Subject:
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:sans-serif">[Sea-sa]
Table 6-8: Background materials for today's SEA-SA SCCS-ARD discussion</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:sans-serif">Sent
by: </span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:sans-serif">"SEA-SA"
<sea-sa-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org></span>
<br>
<hr noshade>
<br>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">Dear Peter,</span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif">
</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"><br>
please find here attached a few comments on
the two files addressing Table 6-8 and the $B!H(Bcheat sheet$B!I(B of notes that
encode the cells in this table.</span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif">
</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"><br>
About the "separations" you mentions, the following is understood
(with no comment now):</span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif">
</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"><br>
A) uplink is separate from downlink ==> RAF, RCF, and ROCF columns refer
to downlink, F-CLUTU and FF-CSTS columns refer to uplink</span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif">
</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"><br>
B) RF coding and modulation is separate from optical coding and modulation
==> only one row addresses optical comms (coding + physical layers)
while two rows are dedicated to TM Coding 131.0 and RFM 401.0</span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif">
</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"><br>
C) SCCC and DVB$B!>(BS2 (which both contain coding, modulation, and physical
layer signaling in a single standard) are separated from the $B!H(Bnormal$B!I(B
CCSDS standards that break these into three separate layers ==> two
rows are dedicated to SCCC and DVB-S2 standards</span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif">
</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"><br>
D) The new Variable Coding and Modulation (VCM) spec that is now in progress
is also shown as a separate layer. This VCM spec is related to the $B!H(Bbottom$B!I(B
parts of the DVB and SCCC specs, but it is different from them in distinct
ways. ==> There is a dedicated row fro VCM (though the table seems to
miss an orizontal line after RFM).</span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif">
<br>
</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"><br>
With respect to VCM (now published) it does not look correct to me to state
that it is related to the $B!H(Bbottom$B!I(B parts of the DVB and SCCC specs.</span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif">
</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"><br>
Actually it should be considered having an equivalent behaviour to SCCC
and DVB-S2.</span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif">
</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"><br>
However let's look at the table row by row (more or less).</span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif">
<br>
</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"><br>
1) N4 statement is incorrect. RAF as specified today does not handle variable
length frames. Even if formally the service provision could handle it,
the production part is specified to support only fixed length frames.</span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif">
</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"><br>
2) AOS - it looks that the C2 here means OK unless lower layer is TC Coding.
Would the shorter formulation referring to TC or a remark/note help the
reader? Most likely that meaning is true for all occurrences of C2.</span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif">
</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"><br>
3) Fixed Length USLP - What is R3?</span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif">
</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"><br>
4) TC SDLP - the box for RAF shall be empty.</span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif">
</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"><br>
5) Variable Length USLP - currently not allowed for downlink. RAF cannot
support it at the time being. What is the sense of C3 for RAF and RCF?
Does anybody plan to use TC coding for the downlink of USLP variable length
frames? What is R4?</span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif">
</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"><br>
6) Why the second sentence of N5 refers to RAF and not to CLTU?</span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif">
</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"><br>
7) VCM - Which O? I think that VCM can also use HOMs and should be treated
as SCCC and DVB-S2</span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif">
<br>
</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"><br>
The reading and evaluation of this Table is very painful and confusing
and most likely other comments could easily be produced.</span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif">
<br>
</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"><br>
In addition to this, I would like to better focus some misunderstanding
about the handling of VCM (intended as methods and not as 431.0-B) and
ACM.</span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif"> </span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"><br>
The receiver does not change for VCM and ACM and does not depend on the
duration of the time interval in which a ModCod is applied.</span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif">
</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"><br>
What changes is how the transmitter decides to apply changes of ModCod.
A ModCod may remain constant for days. weeks, months (e.g. based on seasons,
whether forecast, etc.)</span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif">
</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"><br>
In case of ACM, the expectation is for a process external to the receiver
that - based on the SNR estimation etc, something provided by all receivers
on the market - decides how to instruct the transmitter to change ModCod
at intervals of second or (most likely) minutes. This kind of side process
(i.e. external to the VCM/ACM mechanism per-se) in a typical space
to ground configuration may interact with the sending spacecraft e.g sending
command with Forward Frame Service.</span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif">
<br>
<br>
</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"><br>
Best regards</span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif">
<br>
</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"><br>
Gian Paolo </span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif"><br>
<br>
<br>
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:sans-serif"><br>
From: </span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:sans-serif">"Shames,
Peter M\(US 312B\) via SEA-SA" <sea-sa@mailman.ccsds.org></span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif">
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:sans-serif"><br>
To: </span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:sans-serif">"SEA-SA"
<sea-sa@mailman.ccsds.org></span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif">
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:sans-serif"><br>
Date: </span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:sans-serif">02-03-21
23:37</span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif"> </span><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:sans-serif"><br>
Subject: </span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:sans-serif">[Sea-sa]
Background materials for today's SEA-SA SCCS-ARD discussion</span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif">
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:sans-serif"><br>
Sent by: </span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:sans-serif">"SEA-SA"
<sea-sa-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org></span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif">
<br>
</span>
<hr noshade><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif"><br>
</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"><br>
[attachment "431x1b0_CESG_Approval.pdf" deleted by Gian Paolo
Calzolari/esoc/ESA] </span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif"><br>
</span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"><br>
Dear SCCS-ARD sub-team,</span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif">
</span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"><br>
</span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif"> </span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"><br>
During today$B!G(Bs SEA-SA SCCS-ARD discussion we spent quite a period of
time discussing the challenges in create a reasonably compact, and also
accurate, table that reflects the currently documented set of configurations
that are made available by the suite of space data link, coding, synchronization,
modulation, RF (and optical), and physical layer signaling standards. There
are many situations where there is no one, simple, statement, or even set
of statements, that can be made. We have had to resort to a tabular
presentation, Table 6-8 in Sec 6 on protocols, to address this.
A copy of this table is attached, along with the $B!H(Bcheat sheet$B!I(B of notes
that encode the cells in this table.</span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif">
</span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"><br>
</span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif"> </span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"><br>
Any standards that are expected to come into being within the next 6-12
months, but that are not yet final, are highlighted in yellow. We
hope these are final before we publish this document, but all of those
dates are still rather uncertain.</span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif">
</span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"><br>
</span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif"> </span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"><br>
Note that uplink is separate from downlink, that RF coding and modulation
is separate from optical coding and modulation, and that SCCC and DVB-S2
(which both contain coding, modulation, and physical layer signaling in
a single standard) are separated from the $B!H(Bnormal$B!I(B CCSDS standards
that break these into three separate layers. The new Variable Coding
and Modulation (VCM) spec that is now in progress is also shown as a separate
layer. This VCM spec is related to the $B!H(Bbottom$B!I(B parts of the
DVB and SCCC specs, but it is different from them in distinct ways. </span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif">
</span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"><br>
</span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif"> </span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"><br>
It became clear during discussion that most of those on the call were unfamiliar
with the details and complexities represented in this table. Furthermore,
most are unfamiliar with the complexities inherent in the $B!H(B3-layer sandwich$B!I(B
that SCCC and DVB present, and with how they compare with the $B!H(Bnormal$B!I(B
CCSDS link layer, coding, synch, modulation, physical layer and RF stack.
I have attached a presentation that some of us constructed in order
to make sure that we understood what those relationships are. It
is named $B!H(BSEA high rate comm issue 1Mar21$B!I(B and is attached here. This
is a statement of the recent issues and also a set of diagrams comparing
these different protocol sets. It does not address optical comm.</span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif">
</span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"><br>
</span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif"> </span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"><br>
It should be noted that the $B!H(Bbottom$B!I(B part of the DVB and SCCC specs
includes a specialized set of physical layer signaling mechanisms.
These are not present in normal CCSDS protocol stacks, where any choices
that are made for different coding, synchronization, and modulation combinations
are made $B!H(Bby management$B!I(B. That phrase $B!H(Bby management$B!I(B means
that the mission manages these choices manually, outside of the protocols
themselves, that the protocol layers contain no $B!H(Bsignals$B!I(B as to which
choices were made, and that any changes to the coding and modulation must
be agreed to and managed out of band, by pre-agreement. </span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif">
</span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"><br>
</span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif"> </span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"><br>
In the DVB and SCCC, and in the new draft CCSDS VCM spec (CCSDS 431.1-b-1)
which is attached here as a CESG draft spec, a physical layer signaling
mechanism is introduced. VCM is defined as $B!H(B<b>variable coded modulation,
VCM</b>: A method to adapt the transmission scheme to channel conditions
following a predetermined schedule. $B!I(B. This includes two separate
physical layer structures: 1) the $B!H(BPilot Symbols$B!I(B and 2) the
encoded and modulated data symbols. The CCSDS 431.1 spec describes
two different VCM $B!H(Btypes$B!I(B. Type 1 uses the DVB-S2 VCM pilot symbol
and data symbol length approach, Type 2 uses the SCCC VCM pilot symbol
and data symbol length approach. These pilot symbols are, in both
cases, just short blocks of 7 bits, protected by a linear code and BPSK
modulation (see attached Table from Annex E). Five of these bits
are used to identify one of the 32 possible sets of code and modulation
pairs that are applied to the encoded and modulated symbols that follow
the pilot. </span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif">
</span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"><br>
</span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif"> </span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"><br>
Where these DVB Type 1, SCCC Type 2, and CCSDS Type 1 or 2 schemes differ
is in the length of the symbol strings and the sets of code/modulation
pairs that are allowed. </span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif">
</span>
<ul>
<li><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">DVB-S2 has its own
set shown in Table 3-4. It allows different code rates, from 1 /
4 (0.25) up to 9 / 10 (0.9), different input lengths from 2992 up to 58112
bits, different modulations (QPSK, 8-PSK, 16 & 32-APSK) and its own
set of DVB-S2 codes that are patented. </span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif">
</span>
<li><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">SCCC has its own
set shown in Table 3-3. It allows different code rates, from 0.36
up to 0.9, different input lengths from 5758 up to 43678 bits, the same
set of modulations (QPSK, 8-PSK, 16 & 32-APSK) and its own set of SCCC
codes that are patented. </span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif">
</span>
<li><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">The CCSDS VCM has
its own set shown in Table 3-2. It allows different (CCSDS standard)
code rates, from 1 / 6 (0.16) up to 223/255 (0.875), different (CCSDS standard)
input lengths from 1748 up to 16384 bits, the same set of modulations plus
BPSK (BPSK, QPSK, 8-PSK, 16 & 32-APSK) and the standard LDPC codes.
</span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif"> </span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"><br>
</span></ul><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">You can see
that these are similar, and that the modulation set largely overlaps, but
they are different. In all cases specialized equipment will be needed
in the RF front ends to handle the pilot symbols and the continually changing
coding and modulation . The other difference is that the CCSDS VCM
expects to signal a pre-planned set of code & modulation changes, but
the SCCC and DVB-S2 also include adaptive coding and modulation (ACM),
which uses signals sent back from the receiver to the sender. To
quote from SCCC, CCSDS 131x2b1d1, Sec 3.2.7:</span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif">
</span><span style=" font-size:12pt;color:#424282;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT"><br>
NOTE $B!>(B <br>
Changes of the value of the information block size </span><span style=" font-size:12pt;color:#424282;font-family:sans-serif"><i>K
</i></span><span style=" font-size:12pt;color:#424282;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT">are
done by a system to adjust the modulation and coding schemes. This is achieved
through, e.g., one of the following approaches: the ground receiver provides
the signal quality estimation (or prediction) through a feedback channel
(e.g., via telecommand) or the change of modulation and coding schemes
is pre-scheduled for each satellite pass based on geometrical information
(elevation angle). </span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"><br>
So the SCCC may use a feedback loop, but no specific protocol appears to
be specified for this. The DVB-S2 standard, as adapted for CCSDS,
makes essentially the same statement. The full ETSI DVB-S2 spec,
however, defines an actual feedback protocol that is, in my opinion, only
of use over a near Earth (or at least a $B!H(Blocal$B!I(B) communications path
where the RTLT is sufficiently short to allow requests for data rate
changes to be responded to. This is not appropriate for use in deep
space where the RTLT may be measures in 10$B!G(Bs of minutes or tens of hours.
They also bring substantial added complexity which, in the general
case, may not be worth the added cost of engineering, testing, etc unless
the mission is a) in a near Earth orbit, and b) can make use of available
commercial parts.</span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif">
</span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"><br>
</span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif"> </span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"><br>
As I suggested during the webex, I think we must treat the following groups
of standards separately, because to do otherwise will overly complicate
the core of the CCSDS standard suite, that I estimate meets 95% of the
users.</span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif"> </span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"><br>
</span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif"> </span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"><br>
1. </span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">The
$B!H(BCCSDS standard$B!I(B suite of link layer, coding, synchronization, modulation,
and RF standards</span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif">
</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"><br>
2. </span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">A
subsection on the Optical coding and modulation standards that slot in
underneath the normal link layer protocols, along with a brief description</span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif">
</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"><br>
3. </span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">A
separate subsection on the VCM and the associated SCCC and DVB-S2 $B!H(Bomnibus$B!I(B
standards that replace the standard CCSDS coding, synchronization, modulation
and add physical layer signaling.</span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif">
</span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"><br>
</span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif"> </span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"><br>
If anyone has issues with this approach please bring them up now. I
think this is the only sensible way to handle this issue of these very
different approaches to the lower layer protocols.</span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif">
</span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"><br>
</span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif"> </span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"><br>
Thanks, Peter</span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif">
</span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"><br>
</span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif"> </span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"><br>
</span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif"> </span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"><br>
</span><tt><span style=" font-size:10pt">_______________________________________________<br>
SEA-SA mailing list<br>
SEA-SA@mailman.ccsds.org</span></tt><span style=" font-size:12pt;color:blue;font-family:sans-serif"><u><br>
</u></span><a href="https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sea-sa"><tt><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:blue"><u>https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sea-sa</u></span></tt></a><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:sans-serif"><br>
</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"><br>
[attachment "SEA High Rate comm issue 1Mar21.pptx" deleted by
Gian Paolo Calzolari/esoc/ESA] [attachment "CCSDS 431 VCM protocol
layers.pdf" deleted by Gian Paolo Calzolari/esoc/ESA] [attachment
"CCSDS 431 VCM pilot pattern.pdf" deleted by Gian Paolo Calzolari/esoc/ESA]
[attachment "CCSDS 431 DVB SCCC pilot approaches.pdf" deleted
by Gian Paolo Calzolari/esoc/ESA] [attachment "SCCS-ARD Table 6-8
Notes 1Mar21.pdf" deleted by Gian Paolo Calzolari/esoc/ESA] [attachment
"SCCS-ARD Table 6-8 proto layer options.pdf" deleted by Gian
Paolo Calzolari/esoc/ESA] </span>
<br><tt><span style=" font-size:12pt">This message is intended only for
the recipient(s) named above. It may contain proprietary information and/or<br>
protected content. Any unauthorised disclosure, use, retention or dissemination
is prohibited. If you have received<br>
this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately. ESA applies
appropriate organisational measures to protect<br>
personal data, in case of data privacy queries, please contact the ESA
Data Protection Officer (dpo@esa.int).<br>
</span></tt><tt><span style=" font-size:10pt">_______________________________________________<br>
SEA-SA mailing list<br>
SEA-SA@mailman.ccsds.org<br>
</span></tt><a href="https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sea-sa"><tt><span style=" font-size:10pt">https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sea-sa</span></tt></a><tt><span style=" font-size:10pt"><br>
</span></tt>
<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>