<span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">Dear All,</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">I have not received
any negative comments concerning the suggested way forward from April 6,
which is therefore agreed by both RFM and DDOR WGs.</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">Meanwhile, C&S
WG discussed CS_20-03 and tentatively (minutes are still draft) agreed
on the following action:</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:14pt;font-family:Georgia"><b>SLS-CS_20-03(PN
shift registers, NASA)</b></span>
<div><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Georgia">NASA presented a
proposal for the unification of the representation of the polynomial and
diagrams representing PN shift registers in different CCSDS books (affecting
also other WGs, e.g. RFM)</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Georgia">AI_20_04 was given
to the WG to report about the proposal, the possible need to have a similar
standard representation and, in case, the preferred way forward. September
was set as deadline for the action.</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">I would suggest
that we also agree on a similar action for the RFM WG with the same deadline.
September would be compatible with the DDOR recommendation(s) agency review
cycle.</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">If I do not hear
from you otherwise by Friday, I will enter such action in the draft minutes
of the meeting held by correspondence.</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">Incidentally,
I would like to alert Greg that the SLP group should have a look at this
NASA's input since it also proposes changes to 732.0-B-3 and 732.1-B-1,
which I believe are under SLP WG purview. I attached the input again for
SLP convenience.</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">Regards, Enrico</span>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#800080;font-family:sans-serif">-----
Forwarded by Enrico Vassallo/esoc/ESA on 19/05/20 11:34 -----</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</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:sans-serif">Cc:
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:sans-serif">"Border,
James S (US 335D)" <james.s.border@jpl.nasa.gov>, "Volk,
Christopher P (US 335D)" <christopher.p.volk@jpl.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">06/05/20
10:46</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:sans-serif">Subject:
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:sans-serif">CCSDS
RFM WG Spring meeting - comments received on DDOR inputs - status as of
6 April</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">for what concerns
the DDOR input papers (dealing with REC 2.5.7B) to be discussed at the
Spring meeting, the following </span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">four
sets of comments plus one full input document (SLS-RFM_20-03</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">)
were submitted:</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">1. Comments by
Wai on adding predistortion in considerings and recommends </span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">2. Comments by
Enrico on several recommends </span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">3. Comments by
Shannon and Victor on PN terminology (subset of doc CS_20-03) </span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">4. Comments by
Andrea and Giovanni on several considerings and recommends </span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">5. ESA input paper
SLS-RFM_20-03 on 2 dB vs 1 dB flatness, flexibility on chip rates, subcarrier
frequencies, roll-off factors, definition of SRRC shaping </span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">I have agreed
with DDOR chair (Jim) the following course of actions:</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">A) Prepare and
submit a detailed response to all raised issues</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">B) Prepare and
submit the resulting revised version of REC 2.5.7B (and 2.5.6B if alignment
needed) </span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">The DDOR WG is
trying to finalize tasks A and B. Jim with Christopher and myself with
Dennis already exchanged several emails on this, and assuming we can reach
agreement on 2, these tasks may be completed this week.</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">I would then give
the RFM WG two weeks to make sure we all agree with the proposed changes
and that the authors of the comments are satisfied by the responses.</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">After that, I
will initiate agency review of 2.5.7B along with the other recommendations
(as applicable) on freeze since the Fall 2019 meeting.</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">There is a catch
though. Comments raised by 3 concern several other recommendations and
books, some under C&S WG and two under SLP WG. It would be wise to
study the proposal also from an overall impact point of view and take a
global SLS area decision at the next face-to-face meeting in Toulouse.</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">With the normal
CCSDS timeline, the agency review of 2.5.7B will most likely terminate
shortly before the Toulouse meeting where RIDs disposition will take place.
I propose that we consider the changes stemming from discussion of input
3, if any, as editorials so that we can insert them in Toulouse before
sending the recommendation out for publication.</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">I noted that the
C&S WG chair recommended the same path for item 3 and that also DDOR
WG chair agreed to this.</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">Please let me
know if you have problems with the proposed way forward.</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">Regards, Enrico</span>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"></p></div><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>