[Cesg-all] Result of CESG poll closing 8 August 2011

[CCSDS Secretariat]

CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2011-07-002 Approval to publish CCSDS 
415.1-B-1,  Data Transmission and PN Ranging for 2 GHz CDMA Link via 
Data Relay Satellite (Blue Book, Issue 1)
Results of CESG poll beginning 25 July 2011 and ending 8 August 2011:

                  Abstain:  1 (16.67%) (Taylor)
  Approve Unconditionally:  3 (50%) (Peccia, Calzolari, Moury)
  Approve with Conditions:  2 (33.33%) (Barkley, Scott)
  Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

      Erik Barkley (Approve with Conditions):  This appears to be 
very close to being a blue book.  I believe there are a few 
conditions that need to be addressed:

1) The document makes numerous reference to a "CCSDS transponder" or 
"CCSDS transponder/transceiver".  It is unclear what is meant as 
CCSDS is not in the business of specifying hardware nor are there any 
normative references indicated to identify what a "CCSDS transponder" 
is.   It appears that this is a construct used to help with 
specifying behavior at a spacelink endpoint.  I would therefore 
request either a) the term "CCSDS transponder/transceiver" be somehow 
defined so that it is clear that this used to generally indicate an 
interface end-point, rather than give the impression of some standard 
CCSDS hardware component, or b) revise all instances of the term   -- 
e.g 7.5.3,  reads "Both long and short return link codes shall be 
generated in the CCSDS
transponder/transceiver in accordance with section 5." This could be 
changed to  "Both long and short return link codes shall be generated 
by the transponder in accordance with section 5." Also, section 7.3.3 
refers to just the transponder, where as 7.3.4 refers to the CCSDS 
transponder.  (If there is a difference this needs to be clearly indicated.)

2) Section/sentence 3.4 should be removed. The Rationale is to keep 
the recommendation focused; ie., the requirement to report on range 
and Doppler information is irrelevant to the specification of the 
CDMA spacelink. It may also be noted that these types of requirements 
do not appear in 414.1-B-1 (PN Ranging Systems).  Without further 
detailed format specification it is not possible to use this 
requirement in achieving interoperability. This could be indicated as 
a best practice (maybe section 2).

3) Section 6.4 should either be removed.  The rationale is that the 
behavior of the network element in performing its calibration 
activities is irrelevant to the specification/behavior of the CDMA 
spacelink itself.  Without further detailed format specification it 
is not possible to use this requirement in achieving 
interoperability.  This could be indicated as best practice.

      Keith Scott (Approve with Conditions):  These are comments that 
do not require formal resolution in order to proceed with the document.

Section 2.1
Figure 2-2 the two drawings seem to overlap.

Is there an explicit reason for reversing the order of the 
transmitter and receiver in figure 2-2 with respect to the order in 2-1?


Section 6.4.1
The spec states that if the system employs PN ranging then the 
network element shall be capable of measuring the delay between 
transmitted and received range codes.  Is there somewhere a 
requirement on the accuracy / precision of the RTT 
measurement?  Section 7.6 seems to be imposing requirements on the 
turn-around system itself, but is that enough?  Without some measure 
of performance the requirement in 6.4.1 to measure the delay seems weak?

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

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