[Cesg-all] Results of CESG Polls closing 8 July 2014

Thomas Gannett thomas.gannett at tgannett.net
Wed Jul 9 09:33:47 EDT 2014 

CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2014-06-001 
Approval to release CCSDS 401.0-R/P-24.1, Radio 
Frequency and Modulation Systems—Part 1: Earth 
Stations and Spacecraft (Red/Pink Sheets, Issue 24,1) for CCSDS Agency review
Results of CESG poll beginning 20 June 2014 and ending 8 July 2014:

                  Abstain:  0 (0%)
  Approve Unconditionally:  5 (100%) (Shames, 
Peccia, Barkley, Calzolari, Scott)
  Approve with Conditions:  0 (0%)
  Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

Keith Scott (Approve Unconditionally): A purely 
editorial question on section 2.3.3:

The text says:
"(2) that CCSDS agencies should use the 
suppressed carrier modulation formats of recommends (1)
whenever practicable to minimize spectral 
occupancy at symbol rates lower than in recommends
(1);

same issue in item (3)"

is the recommends (1) text the 'right' way to 
make such a reference? I expected something like:

"that CCSDS agencies should use the suppressed 
carrier modulation formats of item (1) above
whenever practicable to minimize spectral 
occupancy at symbol rates lower than in item (1);"


Total Respondents: 5
No response was received from the following Area(s):

SOIS

SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Approved Unconditionally
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            Generate CMC poll

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

CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2014-06-002 
Approval to release CCSDS 902.1-R-1, Simple 
Schedule Format Specification (Red Book, Issue 1) for CCSDS Agency review
Results of CESG poll beginning 20 June 2014 and ending 8 July 2014:

                  Abstain:  0 (0%)
  Approve Unconditionally:  1 (20%) (Barkley)
  Approve with Conditions:  4 (80%) (Shames, Peccia, Calzolari, Scott)
  Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions): See 
attached document with mark-ups. I am concerned 
that the document effectively repeats the same 
information four times in a slightly different 
form (UML, English, PICS & XML description). 
There is also a fifth form, XML, that is included 
by reference. This redundancy, while it may 
remove some ambiguity (if not simultaneously 
adding some), makes the document much larger than 
it would otherwise be and also adds a burden to 
keep all the different forms in synch. I'd ask 
the team to consider slimming it down.

There are also a set of SANA registries sketched 
that need both further work and consideration as 
more generalized CCSDS registries (organizations, 
users, antennas). I'd accept just flagging these 
items at this time, but request that they be 
resolved prior to final publication.

Nestor Peccia (Approve with Conditions): I fully 
agree with other ADs that duplicated information 
has to be taken out to avoid maintenance and error prone burdens.

Gian Paolo Calzolari (Approve with Conditions): 
The values of the parameter frequencyBand are 
ambiguous (indication by letters is controversial 
and Frequency managers tend to use exact 
frequency bands) and not consistent with CCSDS documents.
Change the values to show the exact frequency 
values for bands consistently with CCSDS 401.0-B 
(book maintained by SLS-RFM WG) etc.
In table 3-5 for serviceType the data type is 
enumerated but the actual values contains items 
(reserved, tbd, unused) that are used for bit 
mapping and not for modern computer typoes as 
enumerated. Please amend accordingly.

Keith Scott (Approve with Conditions): See attached.


Total Respondents: 5
No response was received from the following Area(s):

SOIS

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

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

CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2014-06-003 
Approval to publish CCSDS 902.0-G-1, Extensible 
Space Communication Cross Support—Service 
Management—Concept (Green Book, Issue 1)
Results of CESG poll beginning 20 June 2014 and ending 8 July 2014:

                  Abstain:  0 (0%)
  Approve Unconditionally:  3 (75%) (Shames, Peccia, Barkley)
  Approve with Conditions:  1 (25%) (Calzolari)
  Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

Peter Shames (Approve Unconditionally): This 
document, while complicated by the breadth of 
what it covers, is quite clear and is also very well aligned with the SCCS-ADD.

Gian Paolo Calzolari (Approve with Conditions): Please see attached comments


Total Respondents: 4
No response was received from the following Area(s):

SOIS
SIS

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

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

CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2014-06-004 
Approval to release CCSDS 922.1-R-1, Cross 
Support Transfer Services—Monitored Data Service 
(Red Book, Issue 1) for CCSDS Agency review
Results of CESG poll beginning 20 June 2014 and ending 8 July 2014:

                  Abstain:  0 (0%)
  Approve Unconditionally:  4 (100%) (Shames, Peccia, Barkley, Calzolari)
  Approve with Conditions:  0 (0%)
  Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

Peter Shames (Approve Unconditionally): It is the 
case that anyone trying to use this spec will 
also need to be familiar with the CSTS framework 
on which it is based. That said, given the 
breadth of the subject matter (monitoring all FRs 
in a system) this is still a smaller and less 
complicated spec than it would have been if it 
were undertaken as a stand alone effort.

Nestor Peccia (Approve Unconditionally): I have 
only one comment for the book owners
Although for CCSDS experts the book might be 
clear, any Agency / Industry staff, not related 
with CCSDS and willing to understand 
cross-support interoperability, will have 
problems to catch how the standard can help them

Gian Paolo Calzolari (Approve Unconditionally): I 
have a problem with this sentence (and those 
related to this): Annex E describes an example 
set of monitored parameters, notifiable events, 
and their associated Functional Resource types. 
These examples are taken from the SANA registry 
(which is the normative repository of all such 
definitions) at the time of publication of this Recommended Standard.

I you say that your annex is taken from a 
normative source, reader may infer a normative 
applicability of the Annex and this may be risky. 
better making clear that the Annex E is an 
example and for normative material the readers 
SHALL refer to the normative repository).

Fix or issue a RID to be analyzed during Agency review.


Total Respondents: 4
No response was received from the following Area(s):

SOIS
SIS

SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Approved Unconditionally
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            Generate CMC poll

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 902x0g0_CESG_Approval+SLS.v1.docx
Type: application/msword
Size: 109161 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg-all/attachments/20140709/f02c7a9b/902x0g0_CESG_ApprovalSLS.v1-0001.dot
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 902x1r0_CESG_Approval-SEA.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 991972 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg-all/attachments/20140709/f02c7a9b/902x1r0_CESG_Approval-SEA-0001.pdf
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 902x1r0_PIDs.docx
Type: application/msword
Size: 17130 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg-all/attachments/20140709/f02c7a9b/902x1r0_PIDs-0001.dot

More information about the CESG-all mailing list