[Cesg-all] Results of CESG Polls closing 14 October 2020

Thu Oct 15 20:23:31 UTC 2020

CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2020-09-001 
Approval to release CCSDS 505.0-P-1.1, XML 
Specification for Navigation Data Messages (Pink 
Book, Issue 1.1) for CCSDS Agency review
Results of CESG poll beginning 30 September 2020 and ending 14 October 2020:

                 Abstain:  1 (16.67%) (Calzolari)
Approve Unconditionally:  4 (66.67%) (Merri, Shames, Burleigh, Wilmot)
Approve with Conditions:  1 (16.67%) (Barkley)
Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

     Erik Barkley (Approve with Conditions):  A 
minor but I believe helpful condition for those 
reviewing the document and the usability of the recommendation:

1) Please add table numbers and brief 
descriptions for the tables found on pages 4-6, 
4-7, 4-11, 4-12, 4-16, 4-19, 4-20, 4-21, and 4-22 
(and any others I may have missed).  Rationale: 
a) I believe it is customary practices to include 
a complete list of tables in the table of 
contents section, b) some of the table are not 
necessarily trivial such that a quick way to look 
up the information will present less 
frustration/better usability for those 
reviewing  (and subsequently implementing) the recommenation.

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-2020-09-002 
Approval to release CCSDS 231.0-P-3.1, TC 
Synchronization and Channel Coding (Pink Sheets, 
Issue 3.1) for CCSDS Agency review
Results of CESG poll beginning 30 September 2020 and ending 14 October 2020:

                 Abstain:  0 (0%) Approve 
Unconditionally:  5 (83.33%) (Barkley, Merri, Burleigh, Calzolari, Wilmot)
Approve with Conditions:  1 (16.67%) (Shames)
Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

     Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions):   I 
assume that this is un-intentional, but I find it 
really innacurate.  It is only when you get to pg 
C-4, and a NOTE in an Informative Annex that the 
fact that the USLP is restricted to only the 
variable length mode is stated.  Unless you 
really intended for this to be over-looked, this 
is a critical factor that should be made plain, 
up front, and in normative text.

Quoted from Annex C (Informative), Pg C-4:

Transfer Frame: The Protocol Data Unit (PDU) 
generated by the Data Link Protocol Sublayer of CCSDS space link protocols.

NOTES

    1  In this document, it refers exclusively 
either to a variable length TC Transfer Frame or 
to a variable length USLP Transfer Frame.

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-2020-09-003 
Approval to release CCSDS 876.0-P-1.1, Spacecraft 
Onboard Interface ServicesXML Specification for 
Electronic Data Sheets (Pink Sheets, Issue 1.1) for CCSDS Agency review
Results of CESG poll beginning 30 September 2020 and ending 14 October 2020:

                 Abstain:  1 (16.67%) (Calzolari)
Approve Unconditionally:  3 (50%) (Barkley, Burleigh, Wilmot)
Approve with Conditions:  2 (33.33%) (Merri, Shames)
Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

     Mario Merri (Approve with Conditions):  The 
documents describes several device 
characteristics (e.g. parameters, calibration, 
commands, ...) that are also described in XTCE. I 
wonder if XTCE could be used as one of 
contributing PackagFiles to the Device Datasheet 
(see Figure 3-3). Has this been analised?

Fig 4-3 Present the 4 Interaction Patters that 
have been defined. They are pretty much the same 
as those defined in the SM&C MAL. I wonder if synergies could be made.
     Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions):  Please fix this minor issues:

Figure 3-14 now is called "DelcaredInterfaceSet", 
but the info in the figure uses the old name "InterfaceDeclarationSetType".

Pg 3-40, Sec 3.15.34 , do you really mean to have 
a math operation that computes a non integer 
result always throw an error.  What about int 3 / int 4?

Pg 4-3, 4.3.2.1.5, mentions "an FDIR 
trigger".  While this is a well known term of 
art, has its meaning and use been defined in this context?

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-2020-09-004 
Approval to publish CCSDS 720.1-G-4, CCSDS File 
Delivery Protocol (CFDP)Part 1:  Introduction 
and Overview (Green Book, Issue 4)
Results of CESG poll beginning 30 September 2020 and ending 14 October 2020:

                 Abstain:  0 (0%) Approve 
Unconditionally:  3 (60%) (Barkley, Shames, Burleigh)
Approve with Conditions:  2 (40%) (Calzolari, Wilmot)
Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

     Erik Barkley (Approve 
Unconditionally):  Comment: Agree with Gian Paolo 
Calzolari and Jonathan Wilmot about updating to remove SCPS and add USLP.

     Gian Paolo Calzolari (Approve with 
Conditions):  1) The CCSDS deprecated SCPS 
Network Protocol is still shown in Figure 2-1: 
The CFDP Operates over a Wide Range of Underlying 
Protocols & Figure 2-13: CFDP Pipe Diagram. Te 
figure should be amemded accordingly

2) The same figures do not mention USLP and they shall be amended accordingly.

3) Some Acronyms should be added; e.g. TC, AOS, USLP.

     Jonathan Wilmot (Approve with 
Conditions):  Section 1.4.2 What does access to 
exactly one filestore mean? One entity can't 
access both a Flash file system and a RAM file 
system? Flight implementation have several.

Section 1.4.2 and 2.1  What does unbounded mean 
in context of a file. All files have an EOF. Is 
it implying that CFDP is also a streaming data transport?

Section 2.1 and 2.3 Would it be beneficial to 
state that DTN provides a more standardized store-and-forward capability

Figures 2-1, 2-13 Deprecate SCPS and add USLP.

Section 2.4.5 The MIB does not seem to be 
formally defined The names are inexact and do 
not have data types, ranges, etc. For entities to 
interoperate they must agree on several of the 
MIB values and would benefit from a more complete definition.

Missing ACRONYMS AOS, SAR, PPP, TCP, UDP, SCPS, SFO, Tx, and Rx

Appreciate the Example Configurations section and detailed sequence diagrams.

Total Respondents:  5

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

     MOIMS

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

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2020-09-005 
Approval to publish CCSDS 720.2-G-4, CCSDS File 
Delivery Protocol (CFDP)Part 2:  Implementers Guide (Green Book, Issue 4)
Results of CESG poll beginning 30 September 2020 and ending 14 October 2020:

                 Abstain:  0 (0%) Approve 
Unconditionally:  3 (60%) (Barkley, Shames, Wilmot)
Approve with Conditions:  2 (40%) (Burleigh, Calzolari)
Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

     Erik Barkley (Approve 
Unconditionally):  Just a general question:  does 
there need to be or can there be any guidance 
offered for implementing CFDP over BP?
     Scott Burleigh (Approve with 
Conditions):   It has been brought to my 
attention that the data items referred to as 
"counters" in section 4 are actually limits on 
counters rather than the counters 
themselves.  This language should be clarified.

     Gian Paolo Calzolari (Approve with 
Conditions):  1) SCPS_NP has been deprecated by 
CCSDS, please amend document accordingly (e.g. 
section 6.2.5 CAPABILITIES MATRIX & 6.3.2.2 CFDP Implementation Survey)

2) Add USLP where needed (e.g. section 6.2.5 
CAPABILITIES MATRIX & 6.3.2.2 CFDP Implementation Survey)

3) add USLP to section 6.3.3 CFDP VS. OSI MODEL LAYERING CONTEXT

     Jonathan Wilmot (Approve 
Unconditionally):  No real issues, but the 
implementations are old and do not represent 
modern mission use cases. For example, LRO, GPM, 
MMS, GEDI, and others had to compress the NAKS so 
that they fit in the available uplink. This 
occurs with our now typical asymmetric links 
(64Kbps up and >=100Mbps down). All these 
missions also had to implement downlink 
throttling interfaces to maintain throughput.

At the next five year review it would be good to update this book.

Total Respondents:  5

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

     MOIMS

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

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