[Cesg-all] Results of CESG Polls closing 14 September 2021

[CCSDS Secretariat]

CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2021-08-001 
Approval to publish CCSDS 883.0-B-1, Spacecraft 
Onboard Interface Services—High Data Rate 
Wireless Proximity Network Communications (Blue Book, Issue 1)
Results of CESG poll beginning 31 August 2021 and ending 14 September 2021:

                 Abstain:  0 (0%) Approve 
Unconditionally:  3 (50%) (Merri, Duhaze, Wilmot)
Approve with Conditions:  3 (50%) (Shames, Aguilar Sanchez, Moury)
Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

     Peter Shames (Approve with 
Conditions):   There are a number of issues with 
this document that must be addressed.  They are 
in the set of PIDs in the attached zip file.

     Ignacio Aguilar Sanchez (Approve with 
Conditions):   See SLS DAD conditions.

     Gilles Moury (Approve with 
Conditions):  Reference [39] should point more 
specifically to the ITU regulations relative to 
the protection of the Shielded Zone of the Moon 
(SZM), since it is used in §2.4.3 and §3.2 to adress specifically the SZM.

To this end, this reference should be complemented as follows:

[39] “Space Services.” Article 22 in Articles - 
Section V: Radio Astronomy in the Shielded Zone 
of the Moon - Vol. 1 of Radio Regulations. 
Edition of 2016. 4 vols. Geneva: ITU, 2016.

     Jonathan Wilmot (Approve 
Unconditionally):   Please consider removing the 
“Gateway” mission reference and using a more 
generic phrase like orbital/surface crewed space 
station. In general, standards should not 
reference specific in development missions
Also “gateway/Gateway is used for the networking 
functions. A “Gateway” mission reference could be confusing.


Total Respondents:  6

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

     CSS
     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-2021-08-002 
Approval to release CCSDS 502.0-P-2.1, Orbit Data 
Messages (Pink Book, Issue 2.1) for CCSDS Agency review
Results of CESG poll beginning 31 August 2021 and ending 14 September 2021:

                 Abstain:  0 (0%) Approve 
Unconditionally:  6 (100%) (Barkley, Merri, 
Duhaze, Shames, Aguilar Sanchez, Wilmot)
Approve with Conditions:  0 (0%) Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

     Peter Shames (Approve Unconditionally):   I 
did not check all of the new registries listsed 
in Annex B, but the few new ones I looked for 
were not in either the candidate registries nor 
in the SANA beta set.  They were in an unidentified Beta2 set and seem ok.


Total Respondents:  6

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

     SIS



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

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2021-08-003 
Approval to publish CCSDS 141.1-M-1, Atmospheric 
Characterization and Forecasting for Optical Link 
Operations (Magenta Book, Issue 1)
Results of CESG poll beginning 31 August 2021 and ending 14 September 2021:

                 Abstain:  0 (0%) Approve 
Unconditionally:  4 (66.67%) (Merri, Duhaze, Aguilar Sanchez, Wilmot)
Approve with Conditions:  2 (33.33%) (Barkley, Shames)
Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

     Erik Barkley (Approve with 
Conditions):  General Comment: The book does a 
great job identifying the instrumentation needed, 
the data to be collected, and use case scenarios.

Questions:

1) Why not make the informative XML schema 
normative?  As CCSDS practice to address 
establishment of a capability for atmospheric 
characterization suitable for forecasting in 
support of optical communiation, it seems that 
some format for exchanging such characterization 
and forecasting data is also needed to completely define the best practice.

2) Alternatively, perhaps the exchange format 
(XML Schema definition or equivalent) could be 
developed as separate CCSDS bluebook and 
referenced here? (This would seem to be on par 
with the NAV WG NDM recommendation).   Or are 
there some industry standards that could be utilized here?

Condition: Please address the lack of normative data exchange format.

     Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions):  As 
much as I would like to be able to approve this 
recommended practice I find it confusing and to 
be a somewhat exasperating collection of 
different styles.  It does have aspects of a 
recommended / best practice, and it also reads, 
in that regard, like a set of requirements.  At 
the same time, it could actually include a 
formalized XML spec for interoperably exchanging 
data, but what is provided is something that 
looks like an incomplete example that is 
non-normative.  Probably a separate document that 
formalizes this is called for.  It could register 
these OCS as stations in the Service Site & 
Aperture registry, but it does not even mention 
SANA.  Finally, and this is a nit, it talks 
exclusively about space to ground communications 
and seems, thereby, to rule out ground to space.


Total Respondents:  6

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

     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-2021-08-004 
Approval to publish CCSDS 132.0-B-3, TM Space 
Data Link Protocol (Blue Book, Issue 3)
Results of CESG poll beginning 31 August 2021 and ending 14 September 2021:

                 Abstain:  0 (0%) Approve 
Unconditionally:  5 (83.33%) (Barkley, Duhaze, Shames, Aguilar Sanchez, Moury)
Approve with Conditions:  1 (16.67%) (Wilmot)
Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

     Jonathan Wilmot (Approve with 
Conditions):  2.2.3.6 Virtual Channel Frame (VCF) 
Service  and 2.2.3.9 Master Channel Frame (MCF) 
Service, “This service is made available to 
trusted users who are certified” implies an 
undefined trust and certification process. An 
alternate and more secure design would be that 
the VCF/MCF service itself reject user frames 
that “violate the operational integrity of the 
space link”. It is not clear why the standard had 
to include a note about not having errors in the 
design/implementation and then not having the 
service check inputs for correctness.  Checking 
inputs for correctness is typically a software 
requirement and secure coding practice.


Total Respondents:  6

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

     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-2021-08-005 
Approval to publish CCSDS 232.0-B-4, TC Space 
Data Link Protocol (Blue Book, Issue 4)
Results of CESG poll beginning 31 August 2021 and ending 14 September 2021:

                 Abstain:  0 (0%) Approve 
Unconditionally:  6 (100%) (Barkley, Duhaze, 
Shames, Aguilar Sanchez, Moury, Wilmot)
Approve with Conditions:  0 (0%) Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

     Peter Shames (Approve Unconditionally):   I 
like the added clarity provided re the order of 
processing of SDLS and COP functions.


Total Respondents:  6

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

     SIS



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

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2021-08-006 
Approval to publish CCSDS 732.0-B-4, AOS Space 
Data Link Protocol (Blue Book, Issue 4)
Results of CESG poll beginning 31 August 2021 and ending 14 September 2021:

                 Abstain:  0 (0%) Approve 
Unconditionally:  5 (83.33%) (Barkley, Duhaze, Shames, Aguilar Sanchez, Moury)
Approve with Conditions:  1 (16.67%) (Wilmot)
Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

     Jonathan Wilmot (Approve with 
Conditions):  1) 2.2.3.6 Virtual Channel Frame 
(VCF) Service  and 2.2.3.7 Master Channel Frame 
(MCF) Service, “This service is made available to 
trusted users who are certified” implies an 
undefined trust and certification process. An 
alternate and more secure design would be that 
the VCF/MCF service itself reject user frames 
that “violate the operational integrity of the 
space link”. It is not clear why the standard had 
to include a note about not having errors in the 
design/implementation of the service user and not 
having the service check inputs for 
correctness.  Checking inputs for correctness is 
typically a software requirement and secure coding practice.
2)  3.2.6 AOS TRANSFER FRAME "2 Unlike TM 
Transfer Frames " should include a reference 
to  132.0-B-2.2 TM SPACE DATA LINK PROTOCOL, or remove the note.


Total Respondents:  6

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

     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-2021-08-007 
Approval to publish CCSDS 732.1-B-2, Unified 
Space Data Link Protocol (Blue Book, Issue 2)
Results of CESG poll beginning 31 August 2021 and ending 14 September 2021:

                 Abstain:  0 (0%) Approve 
Unconditionally:  6 (100%) (Barkley, Duhaze, 
Shames, Aguilar Sanchez, Moury, Wilmot)
Approve with Conditions:  0 (0%) Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

     Jonathan Wilmot (Approve 
Unconditionally):   Managed parameter names and 
units should not be informal.  Machine parsable 
names, data types and ranges should be provided. 
Some CCSDS standards provide managed parameter in XML, json, ... formats.

I do not want to hold up this document but hope 
all CCSDS documents can move toward a more formal 
definition in the future to improve 
interoperability of the management and configuration of CCSDS protocols.


Total Respondents:  6

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

     SIS



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

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