[Cesg-all] Results of CESG Polls closing 7 January 2021

CCSDS Secretariat thomas.gannett at tgannett.net
Tue Jan 19 22:39:50 UTC 2021 

CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2020-12-001 
Approval to publish CCSDS 123.0-B-2 Cor. 3, 
Technical Corrigendum 3 to CCSDS 123.0-B-2, Issued February 2019
Results of CESG poll beginning 18 December 2020 and ending 7 January 2021:

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

Total Respondents:  6

All Areas responded to this question.



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

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2020-12-002 
Approval to publish CCSDS 401.0-B-31, Radio 
Frequency and Modulation Systems­Part 1: Earth 
Stations and Spacecraft (Blue Book, Issue 31)
Results of CESG poll beginning 18 December 2020 and ending 7 January 2021:

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

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

      Erik Barkley (Approve Unconditionally):  A 
minor editorial suggestion (not a condition):


Page 3.1.6B-1

FROM: "...that most past, existing, and planned 
Category B missions have assigned frequencies that were
selected on the basis of these existing channel frequency plans; ..."

TO: "...that most past, existing, and planned 
Category B missions have assigned frequencies 
that were or will be selected on the basis of 
these existing channel frequency plans; ..."

RATIONALE: not all planned Category B missions 
assigned frequencies have been selected such that 
the past tense can be used exclusively and I 
believe it also better indicates the expected practice going forward


Total Respondents:  6

All Areas responded to this question.



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

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2020-12-003 
Approval to publish CCSDS 431.1-B-1, Variable 
Coded Modulation Protocol (Blue Book, Issue 1)
Results of CESG poll beginning 18 December 2020 and ending 7 January 2021:

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

Total Respondents:  6

All Areas responded to this question.



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

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2020-12-004 
Approval to publish CCSDS 766.1-B-3, Digital 
Motion Imagery (Blue Book, Issue 3)
Results of CESG poll beginning 18 December 2020 and ending 7 January 2021:

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

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

      Jonathan Wilmot (Approve with 
Conditions):  1) Concern that section 
3.6.2.3  references CCSDS 766.3-R-1 specification 
for RTP as Transport for Audio and Video over DTN 
and the red book is not available to the reader.

2) The statement in 3.6.2.4 that "RTP-based 
decoders must have sufficient buffering to manage 
out-of-order arrival" would be very difficult to 
bound as the needed bundle may come at the next 
contact if it took a different path. Suggest that 
3.6.2.4 reference 766.3 and state that RTP 
decoder buffer size is related to bundle TTL and 
should be tolerant of packet loss and/or use DTPC as described in 766.3

3) 3.7.2.2.2 CFDP class 2 should be stated as an 
option for reliable transmission where a eliable UT layer is not available.


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-2020-12-005 
Approval to publish CCSDS 921.1-B-2, Cross 
Support Transfer Service­Specification Framework (Blue Book, Issue 2)
Results of CESG poll beginning 18 December 2020 and ending 7 January 2021:

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

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

      Peter Shames (Approve with 
Conditions):  This is a comprehensive (i.e. 
large) document that describes a framework that 
can support development of services for a wide 
range of comm standards from four CCSDS Area 
(SLS, SIS, CSS, and SEA).  As such, at 364 pages 
in length, I am somewhat concerned that it may 
fall into the "door stop" category, much like the 
infamous 910.11 document.  It has a lot of 
careful explanations, whch also render it 
somewhat wordy, and due to inclusion of specs, 
text, and ANS.1 it feels very repetitive.  I am 
not suggesting that we not send it out for 
review, but I am noting issues that may be a concern.

I do have a condition before it goes out for 
review and that is that the editorial issues on 
pgs M-3 thru M-10 be fixed.  I will also note 
that some of the Security sections in H-2, having 
to do with Privacy and Integrity are not as strong as they might be.

CSTS fits into the middle of the comm stack as a 
sort of terrestrial to space "gateway".  It has 
its own security aspects, but it also supports, 
without hinderance. all of the other CCSDS 
security mecahinisms, such as data encryption, 
SDLS, BPSec, etc.  This ought to be stated 
explicitly since they are features of this 
framework.  I am willing to allow this to be 
handled as a part of the Agency review processing.

      Jonathan Wilmot (Approve 
Unconditionally):  I share Peter's concerns about 
length. It would have been better to split 
sections into separate books. Understood that it 
is too late now as this poll is for publication.

Spelling-  RCF Return Chanel Frame (SLE)  should be Channel


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-2020-12-006 
Approval to publish CCSDS 922.3-B-1, Cross 
Support Transfer Service­Forward Frame Service (Blue Book, Issue 1)
Results of CESG poll beginning 18 December 2020 and ending 7 January 2021:

                  Abstain:  0 (0%)
  Approve Unconditionally:  4 (100%) (Barkley, Merri, Burleigh, Wilmot)
  Approve with Conditions:  0 (0%)
  Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

      Scott Burleigh (Approve 
Unconditionally):  Not a condition, but an 
observation: there is a typo at the end of 
section 1.4, i.e., "these three uses cases" 
should be "these four use cases".  Additionally, 
this section alludes to use cases in annex J that 
are referenced by section numbers in annex I.

      Jonathan Wilmot (Approve 
Unconditionally):  Glad to see the formal term 
definitions and SANA registration


Total Respondents:  4

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

      SEA
      SLS



SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Approved with Conditions

NOTE - Conditions stated in a late poll response are under
        review by the technical editor.

PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            Generate 
CMC poll after conditions have been addressed

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

More information about the CESG-All mailing list