<span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">Dear All,</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">it was brought
to my attention by my colleague Salvador that there might be an ambiguity
with the word "DOR tones" in recommends 15 of REC 2.5.7B.</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">The ambiguity
comes from the fact that, differently from REC 2.5.6B, the tones are modulated
and one may misinterpret this recommends to only restrict the subcarrier
frequency.</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">I did a global
search for tone in REC 2.5.7B. There are 4 occurrences of which only 1
should stay:</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">1) Considering
B</span>
<br>
<div><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Times New Roman">(b)  
     that Delta-DOR measurement accuracy for spacecraft
transmitting sinusoidal DOR tones as given in recommendation 2.5.6B can
be limited by spectral mismatching between spacecraft and quasar signals;</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">This is a legitimate
use as it points to REC 2.5.6B</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">2) Recommends
14</span>
<br>
<div><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Times New Roman">(14)  
     that the power flux density on the Earth of
DOR tones outside the deep space band shall be limited to −211 dBW/m²
in the 8 GHz band and −204 dBW/m² in the 32 GHz band;</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">I propose to change
"DOR tones" to "the RF DOR signal".</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">3) Recommends
15</span>
<br>
<div><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Times New Roman">(15)  
     that no DOR tones in the 31.3$B!>(B31.8 GHz band
shall be employed.</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">I propose to change
the sentence to "that the RF DOR signal shall not overlap with the
31.3-31.8 GHz band".</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">4) Annex A2.1</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Times New Roman">The measured
baseband spectrum was flat within the DOR tone channels, but after the
analog LPF there is approximately 3 dB of power variation across the 8
MHz PN spectrum.</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">I propose to change
"within the DOR tone channels" to "within the DOR PN spectra"</span>
<br>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">Please have a
look at my proposals and let me know by the end of the day if you can accept
them. I know it is late but since this recommendation will stay in the
WG until next meeting, I think we can still fix it now.</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">If you agree,
I will make these changes as rev marks to the version that was distributed
yesterday.</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">Regards,</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">Enrico</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">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,
James.S.Border@jpl.nasa.gov, "Volk, Christopher P (US 335D)"
<christopher.p.volk@jpl.nasa.gov>, Javier De Vicente/esoc/ESA@ESA,
Marco Lanucara/esoc/ESA@ESA</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:sans-serif">Cc:
       </span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:sans-serif">"Thomas
Gannett" <thomas.gannett@tgannett.net>, gilles.moury@cnes.fr</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:sans-serif">Date:
       </span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:sans-serif">26/10/20
16:20</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:sans-serif">Subject:
       </span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:sans-serif">401x0rp301
Agency Review conclusion</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">as agreed by the
WG, here are the conclusions of this agency review:</span>
<br>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><b>REC
2.5.6B and REC 3.1.6B</b> received no RIDs and will be published in the
401 BB as they are. </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><b>REC
2.5.7B</b> received 4 RIDs, all of editorial nature. RIDs disposition as
well as updated REC as per RIDs disposition is attached. It will remain
in the RFM WG until the two prototypes have been documented in the needed
yellow book (planned for next meeting.)</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">Regards,
Enrico</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">[attachment
"401x0rp301.ESA_RID_JdV-disposit.docx" deleted by Enrico Vassallo/esoc/ESA]
[attachment "401x0rp301.ESA_RID_AM-disposit.docx" deleted by
Enrico Vassallo/esoc/ESA] [attachment "401.0_2.5.7B_R1-after AR.doc"
deleted by Enrico Vassallo/esoc/ESA] </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">P.S.
Tom: please use your version for REC 2.5.6B amd 3.1.6B when modifying the
401-BB as directed by the SLS AD resolution. Where are you with the corrigendum
on Table 2.6.14-1 "Recommended TTFRs for the 22.55-23.15 MHz and 25.5-27.0
GHz Bands"? Is it being done independently or shall it be done together
with insertion of the revised REC 2.5.6B and 3.1.6B?</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"></p></div></div></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>