[Cesg-all] Results of CESG polls closing 11 August 2010

[CCSDS Secretariat]

CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2010-07-003 Final approval of CCSDS 
231.0-B-2, TC Synchronization and Channel Coding (Blue Book, Issue 2)
Results of CESG poll beginning 28 July 2010 and ending 11 August 2010:

                  Abstain:  2 (33.33%) (Peccia, Taylor)
  Approve Unconditionally:  2 (33.33%) (Gerner, Moury)
  Approve with Conditions:  2 (33.33%) (Barkley, Durst)
  Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

      Erik Barkley (Approve with Conditions):  1) A  minor 
recommendation/suggestion for improving transfer of understanding 
when reading the recommendation:  The CLTU Reception State Diagram 
(Fig 4-2), labels the states which is much appreciated but why not 
label the transition edges as well? This would make understanding the 
state diagram much quicker for the reader.

2) Usage of REPETITIONS parameter: suggest considering that 
REPETITIONS = 0 (zero) implies no repetitions, rather than 
REPETITIONS = 1 implies no (or zero) repetitions -- as currently 
defined this seems like a misunderstanding waiting to happen.

      Bob Durst (Approve with Conditions):  Regarding section 6.1.3: 
"PLOP-2 shall be used for missions whose planning begins after August 
2010":  It seems brittle to incorporate specific dates within a 
proposed standard, particularly one that is not binding on Member 
Agencies until it is explicitly adopted as an Agency Standard by 
those members.  I am mindful of the need to transition to this new 
capability, but might it better be expressed in the following 
manner:  "PLOP-2 shall be used for all missions for which the TC 
Physical Layer Operations Procedures are relevant and whose planning 
begins after this document is approved and adopted as an Agency 
Standard."  Adoption of this text is not a condition for approval, 
only a suggestion.

A3:  "If the optional Repetitions parameter is supported, then the 
parameter shall contain a positive integer value, greater than or 
equal to 1. If the value of the Repetitions parameter is greater
than 1, then the Frames parameter should not contain any Type-BD 
frames defined in
reference [1]."  It is unclear (to me) from this text whether a value 
of 1 means to transmit the frame once or to *repeat* it once (for a 
total of two transmissions).  Please clarify.  (The note on A4.2.4 is 
completely clear -- I'd suggest either moving it up to section A3 or 
to replicate it in section A3.)


Total Respondents:  6

No response was received from the following Area(s):

      SEA



SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Approved with Conditions
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            Generate CMC poll after 
conditions have been addressed

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2010-07-004 Final approval of CCSDS 
232.0-B-2, TC Space Data Link Protocol (Blue Book, Issue 2)
Results of CESG poll beginning 28 July 2010 and ending 11 August 2010:

                  Abstain:  2 (40%) (Peccia, Taylor)
  Approve Unconditionally:  2 (40%) (Gerner, Moury)
  Approve with Conditions:  1 (20%) (Durst)
  Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

      Bob Durst (Approve with Conditions):  This is not a condition 
for approval, but I'd like to see greater consistency between the 
following two statements in section 2.2.2.3:

"The Expedited Service (Type-B Service) is normally used either in 
exceptional operational circumstances, typically during spacecraft 
recovery operations, or when a higher layer protocol provides a 
retransmission capability."

and

"If the service provider is supporting a reliable Type-A Service, 
then Type-A Service should be used exclusively."

The (admittedly non-normative) note implies that I should abandon use 
of Type-B operation if Type-A is available, but disregards the 
"exceptional operational circumstances" noted in the opening 
paragraph.  Revising the note to the following would retain the sense 
of the note and yet acknowledge the utility of Type-B service:

"...then Type-A Service should be used exclusively in normal 
operational circumstances."


Total Respondents:  5

No response was received from the following Area(s):

      SEA
      CSS



SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Approved with Conditions
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            Generate CMC poll after 
conditions have been addressed

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2010-07-005 Final approval of CCSDS 
232.1-B-2, Communications Operation Procedure-1 (Blue Book, Issue 2)
Results of CESG poll beginning 28 July 2010 and ending 11 August 2010:

                  Abstain:  2 (40%) (Peccia, Taylor)
  Approve Unconditionally:  2 (40%) (Gerner, Moury)
  Approve with Conditions:  1 (20%) (Durst)
  Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

      Bob Durst (Approve with Conditions):  Section 5.1.9.3:  Are 
COP-1 retransmissions subject to the (optional) "Repetitions" 
behavior from reference [3]?  That is, if "Repetitions" = 2 and I 
have a COP-1 retransmission, will the *retransmission* be repeated 
twice?  (I believe that the answer is "yes" but want to confirm that 
my understanding is correct and suggest that this be clarified in the 
text.)  Are these "Repetitions" factored in to the "maximum number or 
transmissions"?  Or is the actual maximum number of transmissions the 
product of "Transmission_Limit" and "Repetitions"?

Also, does the incorporation of the "Repetitions" behavior have any 
effect on COP-1's assurance of "no duplications"?  That is, once a 
frame is acknowledged, will the receipt of subsequent "repetitions" 
be handled correctly by the COP-1?  (I should have worked through the 
state tables/diagrams, but did not.  Please verify and provide some 
assertion in 5.1.9.3 that the "repetitions" behavior is properly 
handled by the COP-1 state machine.


Total Respondents:  5

No response was received from the following Area(s):

      SEA
      CSS



SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Approved with Conditions
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            Generate CMC poll after 
conditions have been addressed

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *