<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 received
a number of proposals, not all aligned .... Basically, we now have many
more possibilities than I had thought of:</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">1.
Change the title of section 2.2 to something like
"Telecommand and forward data" and that of section 2.4 to something
like "Telemetry and return data" </span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Pro: Easy title </span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Con: Would need to check in detail all recommendations
in 2.2 and 2.4, which may require a considerable effort<br>
</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">2a
Change the section titles to "Telecommand (including
data transfer)" and "Telemetry (including data transfer)"
</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Pro: Avoid checking current recommendations
for consistency</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Con: Meaning/interpretation may not be understood/clear<br>
</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">2b
As 2a but using as alternative to "data transfer"
the "payload" word </span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Pro: Avoid checking current recommendations
for consistency</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Con: Payload is not generally utilized to indicate
the same thing in different fora<br>
</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">3a
Ignore this semantic problem and leave everything
unchanged<br>
Pro: no effort</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Con: May cause confusion/does not address the concern</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">3b
Address semantic problems with dedicated notes in
section 2.0 concerning sections 2.2 and 2.4, and leave everything
else unchanged</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Pro: minimal effort </span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Con: none identified</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">4.
Change the title of Section 2.2 to "Forward"
and that of 2.4 to "Return" by itself or whatever other word
is needed such as "data, link, etc."</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Pro: as option 1</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Con: as option 1 and depending on exact text also
as option 2a/2b</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">Given that this
terminology is also used in C&S WG books, it is proposed that discussion
be continued at the upcoming joint RFM/C&S WG meeting.</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">Thanks to all
respondents and to Shannon for providing most pros and cons.</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">Regards, Enrico</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#800080;font-family:sans-serif">-----
Forwarded by Enrico Vassallo/esoc/ESA on 15/04/21 14:32 -----</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">Gian
Paolo Calzolari/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">Enrico
Vassallo/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">"Jon
Hamkins" <Jon.Hamkins@jpl.caltech.edu>, "Rodriguez, Shannon
(GSFC-5670)" <shannon.rodriguez-1@nasa.gov>, "Sank, Victor
J. (GSFC-567.0)[SCIENCE SYSTEMS AND APPLICATIONS INC]" <victor.j.sank@nasa.gov>,
"Fong, Wai H. (GSFC-5670)" <wai.h.fong@nasa.gov>, "Lee,
Wing-tsz (GSFC-5670)" <wing-tsz.lee-1@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">10/04/21
11:50</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:sans-serif">Subject:
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:sans-serif">Re:
[Sls-rfm] [EXTERNAL] Re: CCSDS 401 structure naming convention - proposed
changes</span>
<br>
<hr noshade>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">Enrico,</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">Shannon,</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
it looks as Option 3 by Shannon could be reworded
as follows showing then a couple of sub options </span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">3.
</span><span style=" font-size:16pt;font-family:Calibri">
Leave </span><span style=" font-size:16pt;color:red;font-family:Calibri">titles
</span><span style=" font-size:16pt;font-family:Calibri">unchanged and</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:16pt;font-family:Calibri">3.
Leave </span><span style=" font-size:16pt;color:red;font-family:Calibri">titles
</span><span style=" font-size:16pt;font-family:Calibri">unchanged, and</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:16pt;font-family:Calibri">
3a Ignore semantic
problem and leave everything unchanged</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:16pt;font-family:Calibri">
3b Address semantic
problems with dedicated notes.</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">consider also
that - in my quality of Area Director - I comment on this issues with a
critical spirit trying to highlight points to be considered (as e.g. side
effects) to take the best decision but, as usual, I will stay and support
the WG choice.</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">Gian Paolo</span>
<br>
<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">"Rodriguez,
Shannon (GSFC-5670)" <shannon.rodriguez-1@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">Gian
Paolo Calzolari/esoc/ESA@ESA, "Jon Hamkins" <Jon.Hamkins@jpl.caltech.edu>,
"Sank, Victor J. (GSFC-567.0)[SCIENCE SYSTEMS AND APPLICATIONS INC]"
<victor.j.sank@nasa.gov>, "Fong, Wai H. (GSFC-5670)" <wai.h.fong@nasa.gov>,
"Lee, Wing-tsz (GSFC-5670)" <wing-tsz.lee-1@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">10-04-21
11:37</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:sans-serif">Subject:
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:sans-serif">Re:
[Sls-rfm] [EXTERNAL] Re: CCSDS 401 structure naming convention - proposed
changes</span>
<br>
<hr noshade>
<br>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:12pt">Hi Shannon.</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:12pt">Feel free to copy the whole WG for transparency.</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:12pt">I think that Jon and Gian Paolo proposed
another option or a subset of 3 with the addition of explanatory notes.</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:12pt">Given the recommendation by Jon to involve
C&S, I think we will have to discuss it at the next videoconf.</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:12pt">I will wait until the deadline to finalize
the list of proposals.</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:12pt">Nice week-end,<br>
</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:12pt">Enrico</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:12pt">On Apr 9, 2021, at 20:59, Rodriguez,
Shannon (GSFC-5670) <shannon.rodriguez-1@nasa.gov> wrote:<br>
</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:16pt;font-family:Calibri">Hello
Enrico,</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:16pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:16pt;font-family:Calibri"><i>(Note
that I removed the listserv and only cc’d the ones that had replied and
GSFC people)</i></span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:16pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:16pt;font-family:Calibri">I
see 4 options (1 added per email trail) summarized again below. From these,
if we are voting online, I would go with the ones with the word Forward/return
in it (options 1 or 4)</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:16pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">1.
</span><span style=" font-size:16pt;font-family:Calibri">Change
the title of section 2.2 to something like "Telecommand and forward
data" and that of section 2.4 to something like "Telemetry and
return data". </span>
<ul>
<li><span style=" font-size:16pt;font-family:Calibri">Pro: Easy title </span>
<li><span style=" font-size:16pt;font-family:Calibri">Con: Would
need to check in detail all recommendations in 2.2 and 2.4, which is a
lot of work I think. </span></ul><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">2.
</span><span style=" font-size:16pt;font-family:Calibri">Change
the section titles to "Telecommand (including data transfer)"
and "Telemetry (including data transfer)" </span>
<ul>
<li><span style=" font-size:16pt;font-family:Calibri">Pro: avoid
checking current recommendations for consistency. </span>
<li><span style=" font-size:16pt;font-family:Calibri">Con: Meaning/interpretation</span></ul><span style=" font-size:16pt;font-family:Calibri">2a)
Or, could use as alternative to "data transfer" the "payload"
word although this is not generally utilized to indicate the same thing
in different fora. </span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">3.
</span><span style=" font-size:16pt;font-family:Calibri">
Ignore this semantic problem and leave everything unchanged.</span>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:16pt;font-family:Calibri"></span></p>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">4.
</span><span style=" font-size:16pt;font-family:Calibri">Change
the title of Section 2.2 to “Forward, and 2.4 to “Return” by itself
or whatever other word is needed such as “data, link, etc.”</span>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:16pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:16pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:16pt;font-family:Calibri">Thanks,</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:16pt;font-family:Calibri">Shannon</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:16pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri"><b>From:
</b>SLS-RFM <sls-rfm-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org> on behalf of Jon
Hamkins via SLS-RFM <sls-rfm@mailman.ccsds.org><b><br>
Reply-To: </b>Jon Hamkins <Jon.Hamkins@jpl.caltech.edu><b><br>
Date: </b>Thursday, April 8, 2021 at 4:59 PM<b><br>
To: </b>"Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int" <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int>,
Victor Sank <victor.j.sank@nasa.gov><b><br>
Cc: </b>"sls-rfm@mailman.ccsds.org" <sls-rfm@mailman.ccsds.org><b><br>
Subject: </b>Re: [Sls-rfm] [EXTERNAL] Re: CCSDS 401 structure naming convention
- proposed changes</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<br><span style=" font-size:12pt">I think of "telemetry" as a
generic term which does not necessarily imply the type of data or its direction
(but it could, based on context or historical convention). For example,
in the optical coding standard the title "HPE telemetry signaling"
is used for a section describing one type of optical code+modulation.
The data can be anything as long as it is put in Transfer Frames, and the
direction can be forward or return.</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:12pt"> ----Jon</span>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"><b>Jon
Hamkins</b><br>
Chief Technologist, Communications, Tracking, and Radar Division<b><br>
O</b> 818-354-4764 (preferred) | <b>M</b> 626-658-6220 (does
not work at home)<br>
<b><br>
JPL</b> | jpl.nasa.gov </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">On
4/8/2021 1:15 PM, </span><a href=mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int><span style=" font-size:11pt;color:blue;font-family:Calibri"><u>Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">
wrote:</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">Again,</span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">
</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><br>
why should a modulation care whether the bits
are from a USLP Frame or something else?</span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">
<br>
</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><br>
I find true the reverse, who is deciding between TM/AOS/USLP Frames may
do a choice or another depending on the technology available.</span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">
<br>
</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><br>
As well, considering your correct statement "</span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">An
Earth based receiver can be much more complicated than a space based receiver.</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">"
it is also true that if you simply call that link a return link the receiver
could also be in space. Then are you really simplifying the matter?</span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">
<br>
</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><br>
About name changes, I keep my preference for NOTES inserted where needed
with more efficiency and less effort with respect to the side effect to
checked within the document and outside the document (e..g people used
to some terminology getting confused, references screwed up etc etc)</span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">
<br>
</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><br>
My cent</span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> <br>
</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><br>
Gian Paolo</span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> <br>
<br>
<br>
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:Arial"><br>
From: </span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial">"Sank,
Victor J. (GSFC-567.0)[SCIENCE SYSTEMS AND APPLICATIONS INC]" </span><a href=mailto:victor.j.sank@nasa.gov><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:blue;font-family:Arial"><u><victor.j.sank@nasa.gov></u></span></a><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:Arial"><br>
To: </span><a href=mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:blue;font-family:Arial"><u>"Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int"</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial">
</span><a href=mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:blue;font-family:Arial"><u><Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int></u></span></a><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:Arial"><br>
Cc: </span><a href="mailto:sls-rfm@mailman.ccsds.org"><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:blue;font-family:Arial"><u>"sls-rfm@mailman.ccsds.org"</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial">
</span><a href="mailto:sls-rfm@mailman.ccsds.org"><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:blue;font-family:Arial"><u><sls-rfm@mailman.ccsds.org></u></span></a><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:Arial"><br>
Date: </span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial">08-04-21
20:45</span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:Arial"><br>
Subject: </span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial">RE:
[Sls-rfm] [EXTERNAL] Re: CCSDS 401 structure naming convention - proposed
changes</span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<div align=center>
<hr noshade></div>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:240px"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt">Gian
Paolo, </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt">
As much as I like details, I
agree that the title need not say what the data is. But it would
be good to change the term “Command” and “Telemetry”. </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt">
A big part of the intent of USLP
is to make the “forward” link and “return” link as similar as possible.
But we may still want to treat them with some differentiation. An
Earth based receiver can be much more complicated than a space based receiver.
An Earth based transmitter can have much more EIRP than a space
based one. The section titles can be simple but if possible, it would be
nice if they informed the reader of the differences. It may be as
simple as words like “forward” and “return” to indicate the initiator
and the respondent, and let the section contents cover the details. </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt">Thanks,</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt">Victor</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"><b>From:</b>
</span><a href=mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int><span style=" font-size:12pt;color:blue"><u>Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:12pt">
</span><a href=mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int><span style=" font-size:12pt;color:blue"><u><Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int></u></span></a><span style=" font-size:12pt">
<b><br>
Sent:</b> Thursday, April 8, 2021 2:14 PM<b><br>
To:</b> Sank, Victor J. (GSFC-567.0)[SCIENCE SYSTEMS AND APPLICATIONS INC]
</span><a href=mailto:victor.j.sank@nasa.gov><span style=" font-size:12pt;color:blue"><u><victor.j.sank@nasa.gov></u></span></a><span style=" font-size:12pt"><b><br>
Cc:</b> </span><a href=mailto:Enrico.Vassallo@esa.int><span style=" font-size:12pt;color:blue"><u>Enrico.Vassallo@esa.int</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:12pt">;
Jon Hamkins </span><a href=mailto:Jon.Hamkins@jpl.caltech.edu><span style=" font-size:12pt;color:blue"><u><Jon.Hamkins@jpl.caltech.edu></u></span></a><span style=" font-size:12pt">;
</span><a href="mailto:sls-rfm@mailman.ccsds.org"><span style=" font-size:12pt;color:blue"><u>sls-rfm@mailman.ccsds.org</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:12pt"><b><br>
Subject:</b> RE: [Sls-rfm] [EXTERNAL] Re: CCSDS 401 structure naming convention
- proposed changes</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">Victor,</span><span style=" font-size:12pt">
</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><br>
my basic question with respect to a specific aspect
of this discussion is the following: does RFM WG really need to enter
into the detail of the type of carried data?</span><span style=" font-size:12pt">
</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><br>
I mean, the input to a modulator is normally a stream of encoded bits.
Why would RFM need to know if those bits are from Housekeeping Telemetry
or from a scientific payload or from both?</span><span style=" font-size:12pt">
</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><br>
The same for telecommand: does the modulator care about knowing the data
contain a command or a memory upload?</span><span style=" font-size:12pt">
</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><br>
<br>
All this acknowledging that other points of the discussion may require
further discussion by the WG.</span><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><br>
<br>
Ciao</span><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><br>
<br>
Gian Paolo</span><span style=" font-size:12pt"> <br>
<br>
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:Arial"><br>
<br>
From: </span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial">"Sank,
Victor J. (GSFC-567.0)[SCIENCE SYSTEMS AND APPLICATIONS INC]" <</span><a href=mailto:victor.j.sank@nasa.gov><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:blue;font-family:Arial"><u>victor.j.sank@nasa.gov</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial">></span><span style=" font-size:12pt">
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:Arial"><br>
To: </span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial">"Jon
Hamkins" <</span><a href=mailto:Jon.Hamkins@jpl.caltech.edu><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:blue;font-family:Arial"><u>Jon.Hamkins@jpl.caltech.edu</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial">>,
"</span><a href=mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:blue;font-family:Arial"><u>Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial">"
<</span><a href=mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:blue;font-family:Arial"><u>Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial">>,
"</span><a href=mailto:Enrico.Vassallo@esa.int><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:blue;font-family:Arial"><u>Enrico.Vassallo@esa.int</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial">"
<</span><a href=mailto:Enrico.Vassallo@esa.int><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:blue;font-family:Arial"><u>Enrico.Vassallo@esa.int</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial">></span><span style=" font-size:12pt">
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:Arial"><br>
Cc: </span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial">"</span><a href="mailto:sls-rfm@mailman.ccsds.org"><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:blue;font-family:Arial"><u>sls-rfm@mailman.ccsds.org</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial">"
<</span><a href="mailto:sls-rfm@mailman.ccsds.org"><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:blue;font-family:Arial"><u>sls-rfm@mailman.ccsds.org</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial">></span><span style=" font-size:12pt">
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:Arial"><br>
Date: </span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial">08-04-21
20:04</span><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:Arial"><br>
Subject: </span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial">RE:
[Sls-rfm] [EXTERNAL] Re: CCSDS 401 structure naming convention - proposed
changes</span><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<div align=center>
<hr noshade></div>
<p style="■A☻■A¨/Á;margin-Bottom:3600pt"><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt">Dear
Enrico,</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt">
Before jumping into the section
titles, I think we need to agree on the meaning of the basic terms.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt">
It seems to me that the term
“command” is a limited term and should be improved. Saying “uplink”
is no longer good enough since we must cover cross links. The term
“Forward Link” has value because it can cover many cases and to me implies
the sender, no matter if it is an “up” or “down” link. It does
not cover what kind of data is being sent.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt">
A remaining part of the terminology
question is whether we want to term to cover the type of data or information
that is being conveyed. The term “command” is very specific, it
is a command and not science data or a software load. But the term
“telemetry” seems to be less specific. I generally think of it
as the return of housekeeping and engineering information but I believe
the term is used very general to also include the returned (down linked)
science or operational data. We need to define what we mean by “telemetry”.
My vote would be to use that term “telemetry” for the housekeeping
and engineering data on the return link. On some projects we refer
to the other returned data as the “operational” data for a space weather
satellite and “science” data for a purely science satellite. I
do not have a strong opinion, just stating terms I have seen in use. </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt">The
section titles</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt">
Seems to me that section 2.2
Command and 2.4 Telemetry, titles need to be improved. </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt">I
hesitate to propose the possible rewording until we decide on the definition
of the terms and if we what the title to convey of the kind of data transferred.
I think the title should contain some detail but at the same time
be general enough to allow for things we have not thought of, if such thing
is possible. </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt">Regards,</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt">Victor</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"><b>From:</b>
SLS-RFM <</span><a href="mailto:sls-rfm-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org"><span style=" font-size:12pt;color:blue"><u>sls-rfm-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:12pt">>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Jon Hamkins via SLS-RFM<b><br>
Sent:</b> Thursday, April 8, 2021 11:20 AM<b><br>
To:</b> </span><a href=mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int><span style=" font-size:12pt;color:blue"><u>Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:12pt">;
</span><a href=mailto:Enrico.Vassallo@esa.int><span style=" font-size:12pt;color:blue"><u>Enrico.Vassallo@esa.int</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:12pt"><b><br>
Cc:</b> </span><a href="mailto:sls-rfm@mailman.ccsds.org"><span style=" font-size:12pt;color:blue"><u>sls-rfm@mailman.ccsds.org</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:12pt"><b><br>
Subject:</b> Re: [Sls-rfm] [EXTERNAL] Re: CCSDS 401 structure naming convention
- proposed changes</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"><br>
I think the note is a good idea to explain the more general nature of these
transmissions. If a change in terminology is made, I suggest coordination
with C&S and OPT Working Groups, because their blue books are also
using the terms telemetry and/or telecommand. <br>
----Jon </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt"><b>Jon
Hamkins</b><br>
Chief Technologist, Communications, Tracking, and Radar Division<b><br>
O</b> 818-354-4764 (preferred) | <b>M</b> 626-658-6220 (does
not work at home)<b><br>
<br>
JPL</b> | jpl.nasa.gov </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:12pt">On
4/8/2021 3:21 AM, </span><a href=mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int><span style=" font-size:12pt;color:blue"><u>Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:12pt">
wrote:</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">Dear
Enrico,</span><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><br>
frankly speaking, the third possibility look to me
the best one.</span><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><br>
If strongly needed, a note could be added about using historical titles.</span><span style=" font-size:12pt">
</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><br>
<br>
The general problem is that using new/different terms - as you correctly
remarks - 401.0-B may enter in conflict with different fora including usage
within CCSDS.</span><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><br>
<br>
As an example, the notation forward/return (link) is mainly used to generalise
the diction specially when one side in not on Earth as done in Proximity-1
Physical Layer book (see </span><a href="https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.us%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Fgcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com%2F%3Furl%3Dhttps*3A*2F*2Furldefense.us*2Fv3*2F__https*3A*2F*2Fpublic.ccsds.org*2FPubs*2F211x1b4e1.pdf__*3B!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!f3bYBbEBsgWLEXHbQyqr6j0l8bZycehpQM0Ljy2_zpwWO2EY_xzn3CRU5kUrbGbUFx_e-oBA*24%26data%3D04*7C01*7Cvictor.j.sank*40nasa.gov*7C0a0a4eb3d9d443ceec5008d8faba0c27*7C7005d45845be48ae8140d43da96dd17b*7C0*7C0*7C637535024283245463*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C1000%26sdata%3DT6*2BFIS3YPSCoWUZ1Z7CpSuDZpg2X03oQ4zZ99SfsClU*3D%26reserved%3D0__%3BJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSU!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!eiarjuL0jNmmyodq4vv1n2IIj1NTIo-lHLA6vr4CfyteQzf1iN6ELUwSlncp0kJ3EAyOiotJ%24&data=04%7C01%7Cshannon.rodriguez-1%40nasa.gov%7Ca0eff9d94dc54a94ae9808d8fad13fdc%7C7005d45845be48ae8140d43da96dd17b%7C0%7C0%7C637535123947354255%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=lRu79nkHj3hx5PCaGua9CEfzOwW34VczrBjR65MPINE%3D&reserved=0"><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:blue;font-family:Arial"><u>https://public.ccsds.org/Pubs/211x1b4e1.pdf</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">
)</span><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><br>
<br>
Ciao</span><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><br>
<br>
Gian Paolo</span><span style=" font-size:12pt"> <br>
<br>
<br>
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:Arial"><br>
<br>
<br>
From: </span><a href=mailto:Enrico.Vassallo@esa.int><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:blue;font-family:Arial"><u>Enrico.Vassallo@esa.int</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:12pt">
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:Arial"><br>
To: </span><a href="mailto:sls-rfm@mailman.ccsds.org"><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:blue;font-family:Arial"><u>sls-rfm@mailman.ccsds.org</u></span></a><span style=" font-size:12pt">
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:Arial"><br>
Date: </span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial">08-04-21
10:05</span><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:Arial"><br>
Subject: </span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial">[Sls-rfm]
CCSDS 401 structure naming convention - proposed changes</span><span style=" font-size:12pt">
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:Arial"><br>
Sent by: </span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial">"SLS-RFM"
</span><a href="mailto:sls-rfm-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org"><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:blue;font-family:Arial"><u><sls-rfm-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org></u></span></a><span style=" font-size:12pt">
</span></p>
<div align=center>
<hr noshade></div>
<p style="■A☻■A¨/Á;margin-Bottom:0pt"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><br>
<br>
<br>
Dear RFM WG colleagues,</span><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><br>
<br>
discussing high rate 22 GHz uplink recommendations, we noted that the current
structure naming convention may not be appropriate to cover "generic"
data transfer applications:</span><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Times New Roman"><br>
2.1<i> Earth-to-Space Radio
Frequency</i> 2.4<i>
Telemetry</i></span><span style=" font-size:12pt">
</span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Times New Roman"><br>
2.2<i> Telecommand</i>
2.5<i>
Radio Metric</i></span><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Times New Roman"><br>
2.3<i> Space-to-Earth Radio Frequency</i>
2.6<i>
Spacecraft</i></span><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><br>
<br>
One possible solution would be to change the title of section 2.2 to something
like "Telecommand and forward data" and that of section 2.4 to
something like "Telemetry and return data".</span><span style=" font-size:12pt">
</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><br>
<br>
This is to distinguish between telecommand and uplink data transfers (like
on-board software patch uploading, etc.) and between (HK) telemetry and
payload transmissions. <br>
Note that already now recs 2.4.8 and 2.4.23 do not mention telemetry in
the title and deal with payload data. However, both recommendations have
pictures for symbol rate definition with captions indicating telemetry
symbol rate. I assume we will have the same in section 2.2.</span><span style=" font-size:12pt">
</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><br>
One would need to check in detail all recommendations in 2.2 and 2.4, which
is a lot of work I think.</span><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><br>
<br>
Another possibility is to change the section titles to "Telecommand
(including data transfer)" and "Telemetry (including data transfer)"
so that we can avoid checking current recommendations for consistency.</span><span style=" font-size:12pt">
</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><br>
<br>
In addition, one could use as alternative to "data transfer"
the "payload" word although this is not generally utilized to
indicate the same thing in different fora.</span><span style=" font-size:12pt">
</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><br>
<br>
The third possibility is to ignore this semantic problem and leave everything
unchanged.</span><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><br>
<br>
Could I have your view by April 15 COB?</span><span style=" font-size:12pt">
</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Regards, Enrico</span><span style=" font-size:12pt"> </span><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Courier New"><br>
<br>
</span><span style=" font-size:12pt;color:blue"><u><br>
</u></span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:Courier New"> </span></p>
<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>