[Cesg-all] Results of CESG Poll closing 25 May 2023

[CCSDS Secretariat]

CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2023-05-001 Approval to publish CCSDS 901.3-M-1, Functional Resource Model (Magenta Book, Issue 1)

Results of CESG poll beginning 4 May 2023 and ending 25 May 2023:

                 Abstain:  0 (0%)  
 Approve Unconditionally:  2 (50%) (Barkley, Wilmot)
 Approve with Conditions:  2 (50%) (Shames, Aguilar Sanchez)
 Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)  

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

     Erik Barkley (Approve Unconditionally):  ​Many thanks to all of the CCSDS Colleagues who helped produce an excellent Functional Resource Model book.

     Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions):  ​This document represents a lot of great work.  It covers a broad range of topics and is going to form the basis for evolving CSS (and other) services, service offerings, service management, and monitor & control.  As such it needs to be as clear and understandable as possible. 

This version, while very complete, is not as clear as it could be on a number of topics.  I brielfy note the following topics here.  Further notes on them wil be found in the body of the document.

1) The whole concept of "Strata" seems to add complexity without adding much clarity.  Why not just use "FR Sets" instead, they seem to be equivalent. 

2) The relationships among Strata, FRs, FR Sets, abstract Functions, Standards, interfaces, real components, all need clarification.  See the attached White Paper that was developed by SEA with CSS, SOIS, and MOIMS participation and reviewed in the CESG.  It may help.Note that Strata do not have interfaces, only FRs do.

3) The IOAG does not devleop standards, only the CCSDS does.  Clarify the IOAG SC#1 & SC#2 at the outset, tie these to standards, and stick to CCSDS after that. 

4) Clarify that this is really only SC#1, not SC#2.  There is some "leakage".  If SC#2 and SSI is introduced at all, then carefully label each instance as [Future], as we did in the SCCS-ARD.

5) A lot of terms are introduced without being defined.  And a lot of definitions are not as clearly defined as would be useful. In many cases clarity only arrives in Sec 3.

There is more, but these are the high level items. Please refer to the marked up coy for additional input.  Ask me if more clarity is needed.

     Ignacio Aguilar Sanchez (Approve with Conditions):  ​This document is extremely thorough and well organised and written, reflecting an in-depth functional analysis of the relevant CCSDS standards related to the FRs.  
For the SLS Area chapters 5, 6 and 7 are particularly relevant. 

One major comment stems from the apparent absence in chapter 7 of a consideration of the optional security services that can be provided with the space link protocols (with SDLS) and the corresponding FRs and/or additional requirements for the already identified FRs. Chapter 7 needs to include security services provided by SDLS.

Another less critical comment concerns the treatment of CCSDS 415 signal in chapter 5.  Since CCSDS 401 is identified in two Functional Resource Sets up front (see 5.1. Overview), it is understood that they exclude 415 signal. However, no FR appears to be identified for 415.  It shall be noted, though, that 415 is well identified and mentioned in 9.2.2.2.5  when referring to turnaround ratios for Two-Way Doppler tracking. Hence, chapter 5 needs to reflect the existence of 415 and map it, possibly to dedicated FRs and/or evolved FRs.

Finally, a couple of very minor editorials concern the following:

1. page 3-4, last paragraph. The word 'bits' appearing in the first and third sentence shoudl be replaced by 'symbols'.

2. page 4-3, 4.2.2.2.2.1 and page 5-2, 5.2.2.2.2.1. The term 'multi-band' is used in connection with mutliple Accesors. FDMA is one concept to allow for multiple-access. Since we do have CDMA as one of our CCSDS RFM standards, I would suggest to use a more general term like 'multi-user' or adding a note  briefly ellaborating on the technical options allowing for multiple access.




     Jonathan Wilmot (Approve Unconditionally):  A couple items not already covered by others.

    Table B-1 is a set of “Words Commonly Used in the Names of Functional Resources and Their Associated PEDs".  Would it make sense to have a set of these apply to at a minimum all CSS documents rather than just this one document?
    Are Guard Conditions the same as constraints mentioned in other sections (7.2.2.2.2)? If so use same term​


Total Respondents:  4

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

     MOIMS
     SIS



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

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