<span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">Dear All,</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">as announced,
having received the latest version of the white rec 2.5.7B with revision
marks, I made a few changes to my already submitted second set of comments.</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">The applicable
text (including and superseding the old one) is here (I added a note to
my comment no. 1 and added new comments no. 3-6):</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">1. Missing recommends</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">REC 2.5.6B recommends
(8) on power reduction, (9) on PFD and (10) on adjacent band apply to REC
2.5.7B and shall be included.</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">REC 2.5.6B recommends
(7) is included partly in REC 2.5.7B recommends (10) with exception of
the 30 dBHz limit that was removed. It shall be included.</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">NOTE: the power
level (power reduction and 30 dBHz limit) is important because there are
also even harmonics which are not modulated by the wide-band signal.</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">2. Frequency bands</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">All tables plus
several recommends (and maybe considering, not verified) in 2.5.7B indicate
X- or Ka-band. They shall be replaced by the applicable frequency ranges
as in REC 2.5.6B.</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">3. REC 2.5.7B
recommends 1</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">I would recommend
adding a note for implementers on how to generate a sine-wave subcarrier
multiplied by a PN code (resulting in no residual subcarrier, etc.)</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">4. REC 2.5.7B
Table 2.5.7B-3</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">The text on synthesizing
frequency sidebands that are not symmetric about the carrier shall not
be in a note. It is mandatory under certain conditions. Since REC 2.5.6B
recommends 10 "that no DOR tones in the 31.3–31.8 GHz band shall
be employed" has to be included as an additional recommends in 2..5.7B,
the asymmetric spectrum generation shall be at least copied in this new
recommend. In the same sentence, we could say that this is optional at
8 GHz.</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">5. REC 2.5.7B,
Annex 2, Informative</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">It would be nice
to add the 3 spectrum plots as given in the explanatory sections of SLS-RFM_20-04,
especially if the comment raised by Wai on the predistortion results in
changes to the recommendation. Even without such changes, the first spectrum
plot would be a nice to have picture (indicating chip rate, subcarrier
frequency, roll-off).</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">6. REC 2.5.6B
and REC 2.5.7B</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">I noted that nowhere
in these two recommendations we specify that the carrier is phase modulated
by the DDOR subcarrier. I am not sure why it has been like this for decades
in 2.5.6B. If we decide to enter this in 2.5.7B, we should also do it in
2.5.6B and send both together for agency review.</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">That's it for
me.</span>
<br>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">Best Regards,
Enrico</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#800080;font-family:sans-serif">-----
Forwarded by Enrico Vassallo/esoc/ESA on 04/05/20 10:54 -----</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:sans-serif">From:
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:sans-serif">Enrico
Vassallo/esoc/ESA</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:sans-serif">To:
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:sans-serif">sls-rfm@mailman.ccsds.org
<sls-rfm@mailman.ccsds.org>, Andrea.Modenini@esa.int <Andrea.Modenini@esa.int>,
Giovanni.Boscagli@esa.int <Giovanni.Boscagli@esa.int>, Javier.DeVicente@esa.int
<Javier.DeVicente@esa.int>, James.S.Border@jpl.nasa.gov, "Volk,
Christopher P (US 335D)" <christopher.p.volk@jpl.nasa.gov>,
Massimo.Bertinelli@esa.int <Massimo.Bertinelli@esa.int>, victor.j.sank@nasa.gov</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:sans-serif">Date:
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:sans-serif">21/04/20
18:18</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:sans-serif">Subject:
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:sans-serif">Fw:
CCSDS RFM WG Spring meeting - second set of comments received on 3 DDOR
inputs</span>
<br>
<hr noshade>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">Dear All,</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">please see the
second set of comments by me on REC 2.5.7B as in SLS-RFM_20-04 (but also
in 20-03). They only relate to a comparison with 2.5.6B. I may have further
comments on the recommendation 2.5.7B itself when I see the version with
track changes. </span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">Additionally,
there is an input paper sent to C&S but actually dealing also with
RFM and focused on labeling of shift registers and polynomials.The convention
used in 2.5.7B is in line with other books but the opposite of what proposed
in this paper.</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">I will send the
paper out shortly as third set of comments.</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">As for the previous
email, please do not start replying at this stage. On May 6, I will discuss
with Jim how to handle all received comments.</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">Regards, Enrico</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">1. Missing recommends</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">REC 2.5.6B recommends
(8) on power reduction, (9) on PFD and (10) on adjacent band apply to REC
2.5.7B and shall be included.</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">REC 2.5.6B recommends
(7) is included partly in REC 2.5.7B recommends (10) with exception of
the 30 dBHz limit that was removed. It shall be included.</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">2. Frequency bands</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">All tables plus
several recommends (and maybe considering, not verified) in 2.5.7B indicate
X- or Ka-band. They shall be replaced by the applicable frequency ranges
as in REC 2.5.6B.</span>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<PRE>This message is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. It may contain proprietary information and/or
protected content. Any unauthorised disclosure, use, retention or dissemination is prohibited. If you have received
this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately. ESA applies appropriate organisational measures to protect
personal data, in case of data privacy queries, please contact the ESA Data Protection Officer (dpo@esa.int).
</PRE>