[Cesg-all] Results of CESG polls closing 25 January 2013

[CCSDS Secretariat]

CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2013-01-001 
Approval to release CCSDS 766.1-R-1, Digital 
Motion Imagery (Red Book, Issue 1) for CCSDS Agency review
Results of CESG poll beginning 11 January 2013 and ending 25 January 2013:

                  Abstain:  0 (0%)
  Approve Unconditionally:  2 (50%) (Peccia, Scott)
  Approve with Conditions:  2 (50%) (Barkley, Calzolari)
  Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

      Nestor Peccia (Approve Unconditionally):  I 
fully agree with SL AD's conditions

      Erik Barkley (Approve with 
Conditions):  1:The general considerations that need to be sorted out:
a) why is this a blue book and not a magenta 
book? The evidence seems fairly overwhelming as 
to this being a magenta book. Namely it does not 
define any protocols directly but essentially 
calls out a profile or sets of profiles utilizing 
several film and tv industry standards. This 
seems to be essentially a best practices type 
book. A typical blue book will actually get down 
to defining protocol, data formats, and service 
behaviors. This book does not have that. The last 
paragraph of section 2 seems to further indicate 
that this is really a magenta book by stating 
that this is “framework of standards” – seems 
like a profile to this reviewer.  Furthermore, 
how is this to be prototyped if it is truly a 
blue book? Request that the book be either 
changed to magenta book or compelling 
justification be provided as to why this is a blue book.
b) What is the exact scope -- my reading gave me 
the sense that this is really only applicable to 
manned spaceflight in the near Earth environment 
such as ISS. It’s hard for me to make sense of 
the recommendations in any other use case. It may 
be that this is largely focused on ground 
inter-operations, and if so, a figure to 
delineate this (an enterprise model type diagram) 
would be helpful.  But the document never 
explicitly states the space agency environment, 
applicable use cases, etc.  It is therefore 
unclear as to what environment this is really 
being applied toward. Please clarify.

2:: Section 1.2 -- applicability with regard to 
“
 the scope of web streaming
” is rather odd. Is 
the implication truly that the standard profiles 
listed later in the document are to all be 
transported over HTTP? I don’t think this really 
makes sense for typical spacecraft to earth 
operations, although the case can be made for 
near Earth missions. But more importantly, the 
document later recommends against using TCP/IP 
when in fact HTTP is predominantly carried over 
TCP/IP (which does not work with deep space 
links).  I would suggest that this be rephrased 
to indicate the applicability with regard to 
streaming video – at minimum drop “scope of web streaming”.

3: Section 3.1 -- a minor editorial suggestion: 
the figures are in fact found in section 3.4.6 so 
why not reference that section directly rather than saying “following 3.4.5”?

4: Section 3.1 -- it appears that the 
recommendation development editor has classes of 
use cases and therefore users in mind but it is 
not clear exactly what is meant by “one of those 
users”. Suggest rephrasing in terms of implementation classes.

5: Section 3.3.4 this is phrased as a statement 
of fact. The shall statement referring to video 
signals in 3.3.3 and standards listed in 3.3.3 
does not seem to be applicable to the standards 
listed in section 3.3.4. Is the “shall” statement 
really applicable to section 3.3.4? Please clarify.
Section 3.4.1.1 -- the phrase “
is now leftover 
broadcast television
” is colloquial at best. I 
don’t believe an international recommendation is 
really truly well specified with vague terms such 
as “leftover”. Please clarify/re-phrase.

6: Section 3.4.1.2 – 3.4.1.5 -- these seem to be 
generally use cases identified by motion picture 
and television industry engineering standards. I 
would suggest that the use cases for CCSDS be 
better stated and refined.  It seems that we 
really have two general use cases in the CCSDS 
environment – near Earth manned operations i.e. 
ISS and video that is in fact delivered as a file 
from deep space probes. Relative to the 
recommendation to be reviewed by agencies, I am 
not sure that we really have spacecraft to 
spacecraft personal videoconferencing that is 
applicable in CCSDS, and it probably does not 
really happen in the cross support interagency 
environment and is unlikely to occur any time 
that this recommendation will cover. Similarly, 
I’m not so sure what the need for a medical 
conferencing use case is for CCSDS although I 
suppose the case can be made for ISS operations. 
Similarly, it’s not clear as to what is meant by 
situational awareness in the CCSDS cross support 
environment. Ditto public affairs.  As an example 
of a more directly stated CCSDS use case, doesn’t 
situational awareness for example, really 
translate into docking maneuvers for ISS? If 
nothing else a mapping between what is recognized 
as outside industry use case classifications and 
the applicable CCSDS use cases will be helpful 
for space agencies reviewing and/or subsequently 
implementing this recommendation.

7: Section 3.4.3 -- although preservation of the 
aspect ratio is nice, I have seen plenty of 
instances on earth where it was clearly a 4:3 
aspect ratio being projected onto 16:9 and the 
image was still usable/recognizable. Also, I’m 
curious as to how this recommendation can control 
the end-user system. It seems this may need 
relaxing to a “should” statement. Can a rational 
be provided as to why this is a “shall”?

8: Section 3.4.1.5.2 -- I believe the notes needs 
to be scrubbed a bit. I am not sure that an 
assumption that all internal data routing with 
regard to onboard spacecraft avionics can be 
claimed as to be done over IP. My understanding 
is that many proprietary buses are still used.

9: Section 3.4.6 -- I’m not sure that the 
discussion with regard to an internal IP 
connection to spacecraft avionics is truly 
applicable. Perhaps this is the case for ISS but 
I believe that is the only case?  Certainly there 
are not laptops on board deep space missions.  If 
this is applicable only for ISS or this class of 
mission (whatever official classification CCSDS 
can provide) then it should be stated as such.

10: Figure 3-1 -- the top left box of the 
abstract video system should really read 
spacecraft to ground (not air to ground communications)

11: Section 3.5.2  -- the little footnote carries 
a big implication. The restriction should really 
be noted in the introduction of this document so 
that it is clearly understood that by following 
the various profiles in this recommendation the 
audio is delivered only in line with the video.

12: Section B3 -- the patent assessment needs to 
be supplied. There is an indication earlier in 
the document of HDMI licensing. I believe it will 
be important for agency review to know of any 
patent considerations. Please provide the missing information.

      Gian Paolo Calzolari (Approve with 
Conditions):  1) There are 31 documents 
referenced (and among them only  4 CCSDS 
Standards: 27, 29, 30, 31). This is something 
more appropriate to a (future) Green Book than to 
a (future) Blue Book. Please confirm that all the references are really needed.
2) Section 3.6.2 ELEMENTARY STREAM - as UDP runs 
over IP they should also be sent with IP datagrams applying [27]. Clarify.
3) clause 3.7.1.1 should be truncated to 
"Recordings shall be file based" (i.e. delete "to 
allow for transfer of recorded video data via 
established file transfer methodologies.")
4) It looks to me that 3.7.1 should also address 
rules for building the files or state which 
features are out of scope in this standard.
5) clause 3.7.2.1 should limit the requirement to 
transmit files using CFDP (whether CFPD runs over 
encapsulation or DTN is irrelevant).
6) clause 3.7.2.3 shall be clarified. The 
features addressed in this clause are not 
mentioned in the DTN and LTP red books and it is 
not clear whether it addresses only CFDP over DTN 
or also some native DTN features for video 
transmission. Is really transmission directly 
over DTN or LTP (without CFDP) an available option?
7) Section B3 PATENT CONSIDERATIONS should be 
filled up (at least in draft form) before agency 
review as I guess there are several patent issues 
to be know for video formats, jpeg, etc.


Total Respondents:  4

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

      SEA
      SOIS

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

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