[Cesg-all] Re: Results of CESG Polls closing 3 September 2014
Thomas Gannett
tomg at aiaa.org
Thu Oct 23 20:34:49 UTC 2014
Dear CESG Members,
Conditions for approval to publish CCSDS 131.5-O-1, Erasure
Correcting Codes for Use in Near-Earth and Deep-Space Communications
(Orange Book, Issue 1) have been addressed (related correspondence is
attached below). The Secretariat will now proceed with CMC polling.
At 05:18 PM 9/4/2014, CCSDS Secretariat wrote:
>CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2014-08-004 Approval to publish CCSDS
>131.5-O-1, Erasure Correcting Codes for Use in Near-Earth and
>Deep-Space Communications (Orange Book, Issue 1)
>Results of CESG poll beginning 20 August 2014 and ending 3 September 2014:
>
> Abstain: 0 (0%)
> Approve Unconditionally: 3 (50%) (Peccia, Calzolari, Moury)
> Approve with Conditions: 3 (50%) (Shames, Barkley, Scott)
> Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)
>
>CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:
>
>Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions): This is just a proposed
>Orange Book, and I am not a coding expert by any means, but this
>document raises concerns. We have, over the last few years, had a
>number of discussions of erasure codes, but there never was a WG
>formed to address this. I am aware of at least two competing erasure
>coding approaches for handling outages in high rate channels. The
>two that come to mind are the "Digital Fountain" or "Raptor" erasure
>codes (such as in IETF RFC 5053) or using MDS with a channel
>interleaver
>(http://ipnpr.jpl.nasa.gov/progress_report/42-174/174B.pdf). Both of
>these have been discussed, I believe, within this working group (see attached).
>
>While it is clear that significant work has gone into documenting
>this code it is troubling that there is no mention of these other
>erasure code approaches nor any comparison with their performance.
>Since these codes were discussed with the WG I would expect to see
>them compared, their performance evaluated, and a technical
>discussion provided as to why this one that has been documented is superior.
>
>The stated data outages for optical comm (and Ka band) channels are
>1-10 ms. At the very high data rates that these are capable of (100
>Mbps to more than 1 Gbps), a 10 ms outage amounts to a loss of as
>much as 10**7 bits. As a result I am also concerned about the
>ability of these relatively short block codes to be able to deal
>with these sorts of data outages that I believe either Raptor or the
>MDS / channel interleaver approaches can handle.
>
>I therefore request that the WG address these issues prior to
>publishing this specification.
>
>Erik Barkley (Approve with Conditions): The secretariat is requested
>to fix the legends in figures E-3, E-4, and E-5. They appear to be
>using an extended character coding such that they are no longer
>rendered as English text. (It is likely the same legend from Figure
>E-2 can be used).
>
>Keith Scott (Approve with Conditions): RIDs in attached .zip file.
>The excel spreadsheet is just the data used to generate the RIDs.
>
>
>Total Respondents: 6
>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
>
>From: "Barkley, Erik J (3970)" <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>
>To: Thomas Gannett <tomg at aiaa.org>, "Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int"
> <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>
>CC: "Scott, Keith L." <kscott at mitre.org>, "Massimo.Bertinelli at esa.int"
> <Massimo.Bertinelli at esa.int>, "Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de"
> <Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de>,
> "Shames, Peter M (312B)" <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
>Subject: RE: SIS RIDs 131x5o0: erasure codes
>
>The legends are quite legible now. Fine with me to move forward.
>
>Best regards,
>
>-Erik
>
>From: Thomas Gannett [mailto:tomg at aiaa.org]
>Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 2:18 PM
>To: Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int
>Cc: Scott, Keith L.; Massimo.Bertinelli at esa.int;
>Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de; Shames, Peter M (312B); Barkley, Erik J (3970)
>Subject: RE: SIS RIDs 131x5o0: erasure codes
>
>All:
>
>I believe the attached update to the Erasure Codes Orange Book draft
>responds to all CESG poll conditions. Unless anyone objects I intend
>to inform the CESG that all conditions have been addressed and
>proceed to CMC polling.
>
>Best regards,
>Tom
>From: "Scott, Keith L." <kscott at mitre.org>
>To: "Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de" <Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de>,
>Cc: "Massimo.Bertinelli at esa.int"
><Massimo.Bertinelli at esa.int>, "Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int"
><Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>
>Date: 10/10/2014 15:59
>Subject: RE: SIS RIDs 131x5o0: erasure codes
>
>
>
>
>These work for me, Tomaso, and I think they give EC a lot more
>applicability (wider scope) within CCSDS.
>
> --keith
>
>From: Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de
>[<mailto:Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de>mailto:Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de]
>Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 9:54 AM
>To: Scott, Keith L.
>Cc: Massimo.Bertinelli at esa.int; Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int
>Subject: SIS RIDs 131x5o0: erasure codes
>
>Dear Keith,
>
>I carefully went through all your comments collected in the RID
>forms and I generated a new document with the original comment and
>the proposed dispositions. In attached you can also find a new
>version of Figure 2-6, where I also considered IPoC (as from your
>suggestion) and CFDP encaps for the sake of completeness, since EC
>interface is designed such to allow "interaction" also with these
>layers. Now the figure is more precise: obviously the text in the
>book will be updated accordingly, as also pointed out in some RIDs'
>dispositions.
>
>Please let me know if the proposed dispositions are fine with you
>
>Best Regards,
>
>Tomaso
>To: "Shames, Peter M (312B)" <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
>CC: CCSDS CESG -- <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>, "Massimo.Bertinelli at esa.int"
> <Massimo.Bertinelli at esa.int>, "Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de"
> <Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de>,
> Tom Gannett <tomg at aiaa.org>, CCSDS Secretariat
> <secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org>
>Subject: Re: SLS reply to SEA AD conditions for CESG review of CCSDS
>131.5-O-1, Erasure
> Correcting Codes for Use in Near-Earth and Deep-Space Communications
>
>Dear Peter,
> thank you for taking the time to quickly analyze the SLS
> response. I am glad of listening that you are willing to withdraw
> the poll condition.
>Your alternative condition is just normal practice as there is
>nothing like a "default promotion to blue book status for a
>published orange book" in CCSDS rules.
>Moreover, whenever the C&S WG has approved (just by chance always
>under my WG chairmanship) starting an Orange Book (e.g. LDPC Codes,
>SCCC and, finally, Erasure Codes) it has always been remarked (and
>reported) that the Working Group consensus had to be intended as the
>fact that "WG task will be limited to providing comments with no
>implication of support to eventual standardization."
>
>SLS Area can therefore assure that CCSDS rules will be followed in
>producing a consensus standard that fits with the rest of our normal
>standards as this is normal practice and all characters from WG
>Members to CESG and CMC Members look after this.
>
>Thank you for confirming to Secretariat that your conditions are
>fulfilled and we can proceed to next step.
>
>Best ergards
>
>Gian Paolo
>
>
>
>From: "Shames, Peter M (312B)" <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
>To: "Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int"
><Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>, "Nestor.Peccia at esa.int"
><Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>,
>Cc: Moury Gilles <Gilles.Moury at cnes.fr>,
>"Massimo.Bertinelli at esa.int" <Massimo.Bertinelli at esa.int>,
>"Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de" <Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de>, CCSDS CESG --
><cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>, Tom Gannett <tomg at aiaa.org>
>Date: 22/10/2014 03:04
>Subject: Re: SLS reply to SEA AD conditions for CESG review
>of CCSDS 131.5-O-1, Erasure Correcting Codes for Use in Near-Earth
>and Deep-Space Communications
>
>
>
>
>Dear Gippo, et al,
>
>As promised I am providing my reply to your rejection of this SEA
>RID. I am willing to withdraw this condition to publishing this
>Orange Book now, but must insist that a different, but related,
>condition be agreed to by the C&S WG and the SLS Area.
>
>My alternative condition is this: That the SLS Area and C&S WG
>agree that this Orange Book shall not be proposed for promotion to
>Blue Book status unless and until the normal evaluation, comparison,
>study, analysis, and multi-agency prototyping be performed and
>concurred by the whole working group.
>
>I expressly wish to avoid a situation where this document sits
>around and, like a nice Bleu chesse, ages until it magically turns
>Blue. As long as I am assured that shall not happen, and that
>normal CCSDS processes will be followed in producing a consensus
>standard that fits with the rest of our normal standards, I will
>remove this condition.
>
>Do I have that agreement?
>
>Best regards, Peter
>
>
>
>From: Gian Paolo Calzolari
><<mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>
>Date: Thursday, October 16, 2014 3:10 AM
>To: Peter Shames
><<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>,
>Nestor Peccia <<mailto:Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>
>Cc: Gilles Moury
><<mailto:Gilles.Moury at cnes.fr>Gilles.Moury at cnes.fr>,
>"<mailto:Massimo.Bertinelli at esa.int>Massimo.Bertinelli at esa.int"
><<mailto:Massimo.Bertinelli at esa.int>Massimo.Bertinelli at esa.int>,
>"<mailto:Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de>Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de"
><<mailto:Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de>Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de>, Tomaso de Cola
><<mailto:Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de>Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de>, CCSDS
>Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec
><<mailto:cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>, Tom Gannett
><<mailto:tomg at aiaa.org>tomg at aiaa.org>
>Subject: SLS reply to SEA AD conditions for CESG review of CCSDS
>131.5-O-1, Erasure Correcting Codes for Use in Near-Earth and
>Deep-Space Communications
>
>Dear Peter,
> in the above mentioned CESG Poll you have voted APPROVE WITH
> CONDITIONS.
>Following such a vote, you find here attached the replies from
>Tomaso de Cola (book Editor and DLR representative in SLS-C&S)
>including some detailed technical discussion over your remarks..
>Note that C&S WG Chair Massimo Bertinelli shares completely what
>Tomaso wrote as this is perfectly in line, in his opinion, with the
>decisions taken at WG level over the years.
>Moreover, Gilles and I fully support DLR position as Experimental
>Specifications (Orange Books) are meant to document experimental
>solution developed unilaterally by an agency with no obligation to
>provide trade-off with justification and this was never requested to
>other precursor orange books.
>
>It is SLS Area opinion that your SEA AD conditions are therefore
>invalid and we all invite you to withdraw them.
>
>Dear Nestor,
> as CESG Chair can you please advice on the way to follow?
>
>Thank you all and best regards
>
>Gian Paolo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg-all/attachments/20141023/a009b8d0/attachment.html>
More information about the CESG-All
mailing list