[Cesg-all] Results of CESG Polls closing 19 January 2018
CCSDS Secretariat
thomas.gannett at tgannett.net
Tue Jan 23 19:14:08 UTC 2018
CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2017-12-001
Approval to publish CCSDS 506.3-M-1, Delta-DOR
Quasar Catalog Update Procedure (Magenta Book, Issue 1)
Results of CESG poll beginning 29 December 2017 and ending 19 January 2018:
Abstain: 1 (14.29%) (Calzolari)
Approve Unconditionally: 6 (85.71%) (Barkley,
Merri, Behal, Shames, Burleigh, Wilmot)
Approve with Conditions: 0 (0%)
Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)
Total Respondents: 7
All Areas responded to this question.
SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved Unconditionally
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate CMC poll
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2017-12-002
Approval to publish CCSDS 506.0-M-2,
Delta-Differential One Way Ranging (Delta-DOR)
Operations (Magenta Book, Issue 2)
Results of CESG poll beginning 29 December 2017 and ending 19 January 2018:
Abstain: 0 (0%)
Approve Unconditionally: 6 (85.71%) (Barkley,
Merri, Behal, Shames, Burleigh, Wilmot)
Approve with Conditions: 1 (14.29%) (Calzolari)
Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:
Gian Paolo Calzolari (Approve with Conditions):
Table 6-1 changed a lot form the version in the
Magenta Book Issue 1. In normal conditions this
would require an explanation on how the user can
understand whether the parameters are provided
according to Magenta Book Issue 1 or according to Magenta Book Issue 2.
It is understood that this is not explained as
there is no impleemtation according to Magenta Book Issue 1.
Despite the document provides no change bars
(somehow hiding the changes to this table), I
still think a note is needed to explain why no
user need to care that the format has been changed.
Total Respondents: 7
All Areas responded to this question.
SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with Conditions
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate
CMC poll after conditions have been addressed
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2017-12-003
Approval to publish CCSDS 509.0-B-1, Pointing
Request Message (Blue Book, Issue 1)
Results of CESG poll beginning 29 December 2017 and ending 19 January 2018:
Abstain: 1 (14.29%) (Calzolari)
Approve Unconditionally: 6 (85.71%) (Barkley,
Merri, Behal, Shames, Burleigh, Wilmot)
Approve with Conditions: 0 (0%)
Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:
Erik Barkley (Approve Unconditionally): Comment
only -- for consideration at the level of the CESG.
The PRM utilizes XML for the expression of the
message. However there is no schema defined for
the PRM as such. Rather it has several templates
(XML instance documents) with which
implementations need to conform. At the level of
the CCSDS recommendation this is probably
sufficient but given that an XML schema assists
with implementation with more or less "automatic"
validation based on the schema it seems to be
requiring more of an effort/resources to
implement than perhaps is absolutely necessary. A
question to CESG then is if a recommendation uses
XML for the expression of its data format should
the CCSDS recommendation be required to have an
XML schema? Or is this "strongly encouraged" or considered simply optional?
Peter Shames (Approve Unconditionally): I am
troubled by the presence of "partial-pass" and
"fail" results in the test plan. Some of these
seem to be due to not using the correct template,
others due to incorrect interpretation of the
template. The included notes seem to indicate the
these issues are understood and in some cases
changes to the template were made. I am left
wondering why the tests were not re-run with all
corrections applied, but believe that the real
issues are understood and were remedied.
Total Respondents: 7
All Areas responded to this question.
SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved Unconditionally
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate CMC poll
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2017-12-004
Approval to publish CCSDS 647.4-O-1, Data Entity
Dictionary Specification Language (DEDSL)XML/XSD Syntax (Orange Book, Issue 1)
Results of CESG poll beginning 29 December 2017 and ending 19 January 2018:
Abstain: 1 (14.29%) (Calzolari)
Approve Unconditionally: 5 (71.43%) (Merri, Behal, Shames, Burleigh, Wilmot)
Approve with Conditions: 1 (14.29%) (Barkley)
Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:
Erik Barkley (Approve with Conditions): 1) Second
paragraph in section 1.1: FROM: "..Two
implementations have been defined in the past, by
the CCSDS: a Data EntitySpecification Language
using PVL syntax (see reference [9]) and a Data
Entity Specification anguage using XML/DTD syntax
(see reference [8])..." TO: "..Two recommended
standards have been defined in the past, by the
CCSDS: a Data EntitySpecification Language using
PVL syntax (see reference [9]) and a Data Entity
Specification anguage using XML/DTD syntax (see
reference [8])..." The references are in fact to
CCSDS standards and do not refer to implementations per se.
2) section 1.1, please characterize "some
choices" -- choices are always being made, the
question is how do they affect the purpose and
scope of this proposed experimental
recommendation. Please provide some essential
characterization -- this will help to better
orient the reader as to the purpose and scope of the experimental standard.
3) Please position the schema as indicated in the
SANA registry section at the URL advertised (it
currently returns as 404 (not found)).
Total Respondents: 7
All Areas responded to this question.
SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with Conditions
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate
CMC poll after conditions have been addressed
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2017-12-005
Approval to publish CCSDS 401.0-B-28, Radio
Frequency and Modulation SystemsPart 1: Earth
Stations and Spacecraft (Blue Book, Issue 28)
Results of CESG poll beginning 29 December 2017 and ending 19 January 2018:
Abstain: 2 (28.57%) (Merri, Behal)
Approve Unconditionally: 5 (71.43%) (Barkley,
Shames, Burleigh, Calzolari, Wilmot)
Approve with Conditions: 0 (0%)
Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:
Peter Shames (Approve Unconditionally): I am
delighted that the SLS Area recommendations have been "ESPY-ied".
Total Respondents: 7
All Areas responded to this question.
SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved Unconditionally
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate CMC poll
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2017-12-006
Approval to publish CCSDS 730.2-G-1, Requirements
for Streaming Services over Bundle Protocol (Green Book, Issue 1)
Results of CESG poll beginning 29 December 2017 and ending 19 January 2018:
Abstain: 0 (0%)
Approve Unconditionally: 1 (16.67%) (Burleigh)
Approve with Conditions: 5 (83.33%) (Barkley,
Merri, Shames, Calzolari, Wilmot)
Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:
Erik Barkley (Approve with Conditions): the
recommendation to "Requirements for Video
Streaming Services over Bundle Protocol". The
report only deals with video streaming. There are
in fact other forms of streaming data (e.g,
streaming monitor data, streaming analytics, etc)
which I don't think this report addresses.
Mario Merri (Approve with Conditions): Sections
3.1.1: It should be made clear that the described
data stream consolidation strategy is just one
possible example. Clearly, it makes sense, but -
depending on the requirements of the video
reproducing application - other strategies are
also possible. Similarly, for Figure 3.1, it
should be made very clear that what is provided
there is just one example of a possible MMI. Many other solutions are possible.
Section 3.3 (pag 3-6): "Return (ground-to-space)
video". Please note that in CSS "Return" is used
for the opposite direction (space-to-ground) and
"forward" for ground-to-space. I suggest to
harmonise the use of these terms and update the document accordingly.
Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions): There
were a number of items that were troubling, and
that should be updated in this doc before it is published.
These are the "biggies" for me:
BSS and particularly BSSP appear to be
significant protocol artifacts, but there are no
specs for them. As I read it they are only
documented in a paper (Sotirios-Angelos Lenas,
Scott C. Burleigh, and Vassilis Tsaoussidis.
Bundle Streaming Service: Design, Implementation
and Performance Evaluation. Transactions on
Emerging Telecommunications Technologies, 26, no.
5 (May 2015): 905917. ) This strikes me as being
not at all the norm for either CCSDS nor IETF
documents. If BSSP is an important CLA spec I
think it really ought to be properly documented.
The references to ION and D-VADER, which are
implementations as opposed to specifications also
seems a little "off-color" for a CCSDS document.
A " Picture Quality Analysis (PQA) system" is
referenced, but it is really not defined. Is
there some specification or system that is actually being referenced.
" IBR-DTN" is mentioned, but there does not
appear to be a reference to it either. In the
figure where it appears, fig 5-3, it is
impossible to tell just what it does. It is a
"black box" with no obvious functional assignment nor architecture.
I think that one or more end-to-end protocol
diagrams would aid understanding of how all of
these items fit together. I know that DTN has
many different underlying CLA configurations as
well as the optional use of LTP. Showing these in
even a simplified EE diagram would be a useful addition.
Assuming you accept these inputs, it may be that
this doc ought to be titled something like
"Concepts, Rationale, and Requirements for
Streaming Services over BP". That will give you
the scope to cover all these topics adequately.
Gian Paolo Calzolari (Approve with Conditions):
Section 5.1.3 states "The other component of the
Bundle Streaming Service is Bundle Streaming
Service Protocol (BSSP), a BP convergence layer
protocol." and "Figure 5-1: Overview of
Transparent Gateway" includes a box marked .
The figure is the only place where BP CLA is
used, so it could be wise to replace it with BSSP.
Alternatively the reference to BP CLA can be
added in bracket at the end on the above mentioned sentence in Section 5.1.3.
Moreover I think that some improvement to the
description of BSSP can be worthwhile.
From the description I understand that BSSP is
mainly a "smart" CLA able to select the most
appropriate of two available (reliable/unreliable) CLA's.
I think this could be highlighted better and
reference to Annex B of CCSDS 734.2-B-1 would be helpful.
Is there the intention of defining BSSP in a
normative book (e.g. Blue). If yes, state it in this green book.
Annex A misses BP , despite it is obvious what BP means :o)
Annex A defines "CLA convergence layer adaptor"
but the term ADAPTER is used in CCSDS 734.2-B-1 ==> please align to Blue Book
This book sometimes uses the term
"convergence-layer" while no hyphen is used in in
CCSDS 734.2-B-1 for convergence layer ==> please align to Blue Book
----------------------------
Last but not least I think that a feedback effect
(e.g. Technical corrigendum) to CCSDS 734.2-B-1
is required for Annex B y=that contains the Convergence Layer Adapters (CLAs).
Clause in B2.1 states "Compliant implementations
shall implement at least one of the CLAs in this
section." but, as the (normative) Annex B defines the following 3 CLAs
- LTP CONVERGENCE LAYER ADAPTER
- UDP CONVERGENCE LAYER ADAPTER
- CCSDS ENCAPSULATION SERVICE CONVERGENCE LAYER ADAPTER
then BSSP would not be not BP compliant.....
Therefore it looks wise adding there the
definition of a TCP CLA and/or stating something
in B2.1 that the list of CLAs in Annex B is not exhaustive.
I also noticed that (normative) section A6 BASIC
REQUIREMENTS mentions adapters referring to
sections B3.1.2 and B4 but not B5 (i,e. the CCSDS
ENCAPSULATION SERVICE CLA defined in B5 and the
LTP CLA for Unreliable transmission defined in
B3.1.3 should be added to the table in A6).
Of course this may be taken separately from the
poll for this Green Boo, but it would be very
nice aligning the books (almost) at the same time.
Jonathan Wilmot (Approve with Conditions):
General comment, book is a discussion of use
cases and not a requirements document with
"shalls". Is the document name appropriate? Note:
comments below avoid duplication with other CESG review comments.
Condidtions:
1) Section 4 states "CFDP (as specified in 5.3)"
Section 5.3 states "(CFDP) should be
investigated" 5.3 does not seen to specify use
case. Add more specification or reword reference
to 5.3. It would be useful to say CFDP Class 1
over DTN would provide reliable multi-hop video file transfers.
2) Operations concept for file transfer in
section 4 page 19 should not be recomended due to
potential duplication storage requirements.
Reword to state streaming of CFDP files should
pause in LOS conditions to avoid data duplication
between bundles/LTP and video file system.
Total Respondents: 6
All Areas responded to this question.
SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with Conditions
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate
CMC poll after conditions have been addressed
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2017-12-007
Approval to publish CCSDS 413.0-G-3,
Bandwidth-Efficient Modulations: Summary of
Definition, Implementation, and Performance (Green Book, Issue 3)
Results of CESG poll beginning 29 December 2017 and ending 19 January 2018:
Abstain: 2 (28.57%) (Merri, Behal)
Approve Unconditionally: 5 (71.43%) (Barkley,
Shames, Burleigh, Calzolari, Wilmot)
Approve with Conditions: 0 (0%)
Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)
Total Respondents: 7
All Areas responded to this question.
SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved Unconditionally
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate CMC poll
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
More information about the CESG-All
mailing list