<font size=2 face="sans-serif">Dear Wai,</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">nobody else submitted any comments to
my first proposal so we are down to two RIDs where the two of us have a
different view.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Here's my compromise proposal. Have
a look at it and let me know if it could be OK for you.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">1) MB-01</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I partly agree and partly disagree with
you. </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Disagreement:</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Also 16-32-64APSK are defined for the
first time in this recommendation and not in other parts of 401. </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Agreement:</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">It is true that pi/2-BPSK symbols for
the frame headers are only defined and studied so far for the two standards
mentioned. </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Compromise:</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">New recommends (6):</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New">“</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif">that
the use of a frame header (see A1.5) and of QPSK pilot symbols should be
used to improve the acquisition and tracking performance”</font>
<p><font size=2 face="sans-serif">The new section A1.5 should be as in
the RID but with an initial line saying that the spec is only for systems
compliant with </font><font size=3 face="Calibri">CCSDS 131.2-B-1 and CCSDS
131.2-B-1</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> and that for systems compliant
with </font><font size=3 face="Calibri">CCSDS 131.0-B-2</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif">
further work is needed.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">We then add the task to the charter.</font>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">2) SM-01</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Here I also partly agree and partly
disagree with you. </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Disagreement:</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Recommends (7) limits the phase noise
mask to channel symbol rates equal to or above 10 Ms/s. Therefore, using
the typical 10^-4 for 2BL/Rs one gets 1000 Hz, which is already larger
than the 100 Hz proposed by the RID</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Agreement:</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">The recommendation does not prevent
somebody from using 64-APSK at 100 ks/s. In that case, one would not know
which phase noise mask to use.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Compromise:</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I would do as we did for another issue
in the ECSS standard, linking the lower integration limit to the mission
specific symbol rate and PLL bandwidth.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Therefore, keeping a factor 10 margin
in our pockets, I would propose to re-write recommends (7) </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">from</font>
<br>
<div><font size=2 face="Times New Roman">(7) that
the phase noise of the communication chain should be limited according
to the mask given in figure 2.4.23-1 for channel symbol rates equal or
above 10 Ms/s;</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">to</font>
<br>
<div><font size=2 face="Times New Roman">(7) that
the phase noise of the communication chain should be limited according
to the mask given in figure 2.4.23-1 for channel symbol rates equal or
above 10 Ms/s <u>for which the lower mask limit shall be 100 Hz; that the
same mask should be used for channel symbol rates below 10 Ms/s by setting
the lower validity limit in accordance with the mission channel symbol
rate and PLL loop bandwidth.</u></font>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Would you be able to accept this compromise?
The ESA colleagues originating the RIDs are OK.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Regards, Enrico</font>
<br>
<br><font size=1 color=#800080 face="sans-serif">----- Forwarded by Enrico
Vassallo/esoc/ESA on 16/06/2016 11:17 -----</font>
<br>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">From:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Enrico Vassallo/esoc/ESA</font>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">To:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">"Fong, Wai H.
(GSFC-5670)" <wai.h.fong@nasa.gov></font>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Cc:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">"Marco.Lanucara@esa.int"
<Marco.Lanucara@esa.int>, "Salvador.Marti@esa.int" <Salvador.Marti@esa.int>,
"sls-rfm@mailman.ccsds.org" <sls-rfm@mailman.ccsds.org></font>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Date:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">20/05/2016 08:48</font>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Subject:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Re: [Sls-rfm]
CCSDS Review of CCSDS 401.0-P-25.1, Radio Frequency and Modulation SystemsPart
1: Earth Stations and Spacecraft</font>
<br>
<hr noshade>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Wai,</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">your position is noted.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I will open discussion after June 10
waiting for other WG members' comments.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Regards, Enrico</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">From:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">"Fong, Wai H.
(GSFC-5670)" <wai.h.fong@nasa.gov></font>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">To:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">"Enrico.Vassallo@esa.int"
<Enrico.Vassallo@esa.int>, "sls-rfm@mailman.ccsds.org"
<sls-rfm@mailman.ccsds.org></font>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Cc:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">"Marco.Lanucara@esa.int"
<Marco.Lanucara@esa.int>, "Salvador.Marti@esa.int" <Salvador.Marti@esa.int></font>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Date:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">19/05/2016 20:22</font>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Subject:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Re: [Sls-rfm]
CCSDS Review of CCSDS 401.0-P-25.1, Radio Frequency and Modulation SystemsPart
1: Earth Stations and Spacecraft</font>
<br>
<hr noshade>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">Enrico,</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">My comments are:</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">1. </font><font size=3 face="Calibri">ESA-MB-01:
The addition of proposed text to specify pi/2-BPSK symbols is inconsistent
with the rest of the text that recommends only QPSK, OQPSK, 8PSK, 16APSK,
32APSK, or 64APSK, modulations. In addition, since pi/2-BPSK only
exist in CCSDS 131.2-B-1 and CCSDS 131.2-B-1 and not in 401.0-B, it has
not been studied formally as a modulation technique where we would need
evaluate the modulation and demodulation complexities. I would reject
this RID.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">2. </font><font size=3>ESA-SM-01:
The inclusion of 10Hz-100Hz specification of the phase noise mask is necessary
because there is no lower bound on symbol rate of the recommendation. Recommends
(2) in fact specifies QPSK, OQPSK, or 8PSK modulations below 10 Ms/s where
there could be significant AWGN noise power. Missions trying to operate
with very narrow of loop bandwidths to mitigate AWGN noise need to know
that they could increase phase noise. I would reject this RID as
well.</font>
<br><font size=3>The rest I agree with.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=3>Regards,</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">Wai Fong, Ph.D.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">Communications Engineer</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">Flight Microwave and Telecommunications Systems
Branch</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">NASA Goddard Space Flight Center</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">Code 567</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">Greenbelt, MD 20771</font>
<p>
<p>
<p>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri"><b>From: </b><</font><a href="mailto:sls-rfm-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org"><font size=2 color=blue face="Calibri"><u>sls-rfm-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org</u></font></a><font size=2 face="Calibri">>
on behalf of Enrico Vassallo <</font><a href=mailto:Enrico.Vassallo@esa.int><font size=2 color=blue face="Calibri"><u>Enrico.Vassallo@esa.int</u></font></a><font size=2 face="Calibri">><b><br>
Date: </b>Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 9:49 AM<b><br>
To: </b>"</font><a href="mailto:sls-rfm@mailman.ccsds.org"><font size=2 color=blue face="Calibri"><u>sls-rfm@mailman.ccsds.org</u></font></a><font size=2 face="Calibri">"
<</font><a href="mailto:sls-rfm@mailman.ccsds.org"><font size=2 color=blue face="Calibri"><u>sls-rfm@mailman.ccsds.org</u></font></a><font size=2 face="Calibri">><b><br>
Cc: </b>"</font><a href=mailto:Marco.Lanucara@esa.int><font size=2 color=blue face="Calibri"><u>Marco.Lanucara@esa.int</u></font></a><font size=2 face="Calibri">"
<</font><a href=mailto:Marco.Lanucara@esa.int><font size=2 color=blue face="Calibri"><u>Marco.Lanucara@esa.int</u></font></a><font size=2 face="Calibri">>,
"</font><a href=mailto:Salvador.Marti@esa.int><font size=2 color=blue face="Calibri"><u>Salvador.Marti@esa.int</u></font></a><font size=2 face="Calibri">"
<</font><a href=mailto:Salvador.Marti@esa.int><font size=2 color=blue face="Calibri"><u>Salvador.Marti@esa.int</u></font></a><font size=2 face="Calibri">><b><br>
Subject: </b>[Sls-rfm] CCSDS Review of CCSDS 401.0-P-25.1, Radio Frequency
and Modulation SystemsPart 1: Earth Stations and Spacecraft </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Dear All,</font><font size=2 face="Calibri">
<br>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
this is to inform you of the outcome of the above review.</font><font size=2 face="Calibri"><br>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
CNES, DLR, INPE and JAXA concurred with the pink sheets.</font><font size=2 face="Calibri"><br>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
ESA and EUM generated 3 RIDs each. They are attached for your review.</font><font size=2 face="Calibri"><br>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
My proposal is:</font><font size=2 face="Calibri"> <br>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
1) ESA-MB-01 </font><font size=2 face="Calibri"><br>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
We were initially thinking of adding Pi/2-BPSK symbols definition as an
additional recommendation in 401. However, it makes more sense to have
it inside recommendation 2.4.23 that becomes self standing.</font><font size=2 face="Calibri"><br>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Disposition: ACCEPTED</font><font size=2 face="Calibri"> <br>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
2) ESA-ML-01 </font><font size=2 face="Calibri"><br>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Makes the recommendation ECSS compatible (specifications cannot be in footnotes).</font><font size=2 face="Calibri"><br>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Disposition: ACCEPTED</font><font size=2 face="Calibri"> <br>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
3) ESA-SM-01</font><font size=2 face="Calibri"> <br>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
The phase noise between 10 and 100 Hz is not important for this kind of
missions with at least 10 Ms/s (even for 1 Ms/s that is behind recommends
(2)).</font><font size=2 face="Calibri"><br>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Disposition: ACCEPTED</font><font size=2 face="Calibri"> <br>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
4) EUM-XE-001</font><font size=2 face="Calibri"> <br>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Editorial clarification.</font><font size=2 face="Calibri"> <br>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Disposition: ACCEPTED</font><font size=2 face="Calibri"> <br>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
5) EUM-XE-002</font><font size=2 face="Calibri"> <br>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Editorial.</font><font size=2 face="Calibri"> <br>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Disposition: ACCEPTED</font><font size=2 face="Calibri"> <br>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
6) EUM-XE-003</font><font size=2 face="Calibri"> <br>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Almost editorial. In the ESA implementation, pilots are used also for lower
order modulations but the suggestion of this RID is reasonable.</font><font size=2 face="Calibri"><br>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Disposition: ACCEPTED</font><font size=2 face="Calibri"> <br>
<br>
<br>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
If I do not hear from you <b><u>by June 10</u></b>, I will assume that
the WG concurs with my proposed disposition and will send disposed RIDs
and final version of the recommendation to the CCSDS management for approval.
</font><font size=2 face="Calibri"><br>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Regards, Enrico</font><font size=2 face="Calibri"> <br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">This message and any attachments are intended
for the use of the addressee or addressees only.<br>
The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in whole
or in part) of its<br>
content is not permitted.<br>
If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete
it from your system.<br>
Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the sender.<br>
<br>
Please consider the environment before printing this email.<br>
</font>
<br>
<br>
<br></div></div><PRE>This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee or addressees only.
The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in whole or in part) of its
content is not permitted.
If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system.
Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the sender.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
</PRE>