[Cesg-all] Result of CESG poll closing 30 November 2010

[CCSDS Secretariat]

CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2010-11-002 Pre-Red CESG review and 
approval of CCSDS 415.1-R-1, Data Transmission and PN Ranging for 2 
GHz CDMA Link via Data Relay Satellite (Red Book, Issue 1)
Results of CESG poll beginning 3 November 2010 and ending 30 November 2010:

                  Abstain:  2 (28.57%) (Taylor, Durst)
  Approve Unconditionally:  4 (57.14%) (Peccia, Barkley, Gerner, Moury)
  Approve with Conditions:  1 (14.29%) (Shames)
  Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

      Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions):  There are a number of 
editorial issues that should be addressed before this is 
released.  See the attached mark up copy.

None of them is particularly serious and I am sure that all of them 
will be caught during review.


Total Respondents:  7

All Areas responded to this question.



SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2010-11-003 Pre-Red CESG review and 
approval of CCSDS 131.4-R-1, TM Channel Coding Profiles (Red Book, Issue 1)
Results of CESG poll beginning 15 November 2010 and ending 30 November 2010:

                  Abstain:  0 (0%)
  Approve Unconditionally:  5 (83.33%) (Peccia, Barkley, Gerner, Moury, Durst)
  Approve with Conditions:  0 (0%)
  Disapprove with Comment:  1 (16.67%) (Shames)

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

      Peter Shames (Disapprove with Comment):  It is with some 
trepidation that I reject this document, because I understand that it 
is the SLS desire to have it published quickly, but I do not believe 
that it has mature enough technical structure and content that would 
warrant it's publication at this time.

The most significant issue, from my point of view, is that the entire 
concept of "mission profiles" creates some artificial categories, 
which, while they align with spectrum allocations, do not align in 
any way with either real mission operating domains nor with the real 
spectrum and power efficiency issues that must be addressed by the 
coding (and modulation) that is selected for any given mission.

I find that the set of categories identified in Chap 2 read like 
something of a mish-mash, with a lot of overlap, some illogical 
boundaries, and a real lack of clarity.  For instance, I can see no 
sound technical reason for lumping together S-Band, X-band and 
Ka-band frequencies in both the so-called "Earth Exploration" and 
"Space Research" "profiles" and then stating that a different coding 
approach must be used in each.  The frequency bands in these two 
categories are adjacent, the physical factors that are present must 
be essentially identical, and there is no good technical reason for 
discriminating between them.

Even the mission domains referenced overlap in strange ways. LEO, MEO 
& LaGrange are defined in "Space Research", but GEO is left out.  And 
LEO and GEO are defined in EES, but MEO is left out.

A much more reasoned approach would be to structure the document 
along the lines of mission operating domains, near Earth, MEO, GEO, 
and deep space, perhaps with added domains for Lunar and LaGrange 
point missions.  There might well be different categories of high 
rate and low rate missions within these categories, but at least this 
parsing makes sense.

The other significant aspect of this document that is troubling is 
that while it is called "TM Channel Coding" it also mentions ACM & 
VCM several times and references modulation and the modulation 
standards.  In my opinion a more useful approach would be to create a 
Coding and Modulation Recommended Practice that dealt directly with 
the key issues of bandwidth utilization, and spectral and power 
efficiency, and provided clear recommendations as to how to stack up 
modulation, coding, and the necessary ACM/VCM control and signaling 
structures to deal with these issues across all of the spectrum and 
mission operational domains.

See attached document, with mark-ups, for more details.

I would have responded "Approve with Conditions" if I could have, but 
the changes that I believe are needed are so major that "Disapprove" 
seems like the only viable choice.


Total Respondents:  6

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

      SOIS

SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 131x4r0_CESG_Approval-SEA.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 363005 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg-all/attachments/20101201/19831f70/131x4r0_CESG_Approval-SEA-0001.pdf
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 415x1_CESG_Approval-SEA.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 933443 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg-all/attachments/20101201/19831f70/415x1_CESG_Approval-SEA-0001.pdf