[Cesg-all] Results of CESG Polls closing 12 January 2024
CCSDS Secretariat
thomas.gannett at tgannett.net
Tue Jan 16 20:36:18 UTC 2024
CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2023-12-001 Approval to release CCSDS 506.2-R-1, Delta-DOR Architectureal Guidelines (Red Book, Issue 1) for CCSDS Agency review
Results of CESG poll beginning 29 December 2023 and ending 12 January 2024:
Abstain: 0 (0%)
Approve Unconditionally: 4 (100%) (Barkley, Cola, Aguilar Sanchez, Wilmot)
Approve with Conditions: 0 (0%)
Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)
Total Respondents: 4
No response was received from the following Area(s):
SEA
MOIMS
SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved Unconditionally
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate CMC poll
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2023-12-002 Approval to publish CCSDS 521.0-B-3, Mission Operations Message Abstraction Layer (Blue Book, Issue 3)
Results of CESG poll beginning 29 December 2023 and ending 12 January 2024:
Abstain: 0 (0%)
Approve Unconditionally: 3 (100%) (Cola, Aguilar Sanchez, Wilmot)
Approve with Conditions: 0 (0%)
Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)
Total Respondents: 3
No response was received from the following Area(s):
SEA
MOIMS
CSS
SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Failed to achieve quorum
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Polling Period Extended
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2023-12-003 Approval to publish CCSDS 902.13-M-1 Cor. 1, Technical Corrigendum 1 to CCSDS 902.13-M-1, Issued February 2021
Results of CESG poll beginning 29 December 2023 and ending 12 January 2024:
Abstain: 0 (0%)
Approve Unconditionally: 4 (100%) (Barkley, Cola, Aguilar Sanchez, Wilmot)
Approve with Conditions: 0 (0%)
Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)
Total Respondents: 4
No response was received from the following Area(s):
SEA
MOIMS
SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved Unconditionally
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate CMC poll
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2023-12-004 Approval to publish CCSDS 300.1-G-1, Time Management (Green Book, Issue 1)
Results of CESG poll beginning 29 December 2023 and ending 12 January 2024:
Abstain: 0 (0%)
Approve Unconditionally: 3 (75%) (Barkley, Cola, Wilmot)
Approve with Conditions: 1 (25%) (Aguilar Sanchez)
Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:
Erik Barkley (Approve Unconditionally): A comment -- not a condition. In the applications section spacecraft maneuver is included. Perhaps this could be expanded a bit to indicate coordinated maneuvers between cooperating spacecraft for relay communications – i.e. the communications network has a temporal component which benefits from proper time management. This is really just a suggestion and I think the book is fine to publish without this minor embellishment.
Ignacio Aguilar Sanchez (Approve with Conditions): Comments to CCSDS 300.1-G-0 Time Management.
As the document aims to provide a basis for identifying potential need for a CCSDS Blue Book describing recommended standard clock correlation and time synchronization protocols, it is crucial that it documents well one of the most used techniques to coordinate atomic clocks with the highest accuracy/stability: the two-way time and frequency transfer (TWTFT).
This technique has been de-facto standardised between some of the world's most prestigious timing institutions since about two decades and has been and continues to be, subject to evolution to be able to deal with the increasing performance provided by optical clocks with respect to microwave clocks. Those institutions are relying on the so-called SATRE modem, supplied by the German company TimeTech to exchange PRN modulated signal through geostationary satellites.
The attached reference, written by W. Schaffer, founder of TimeTech and a renowned TWTFT expert, provides a good overview of the technique as well as some possible directions for evolution including both mm-wave and optical frequencies.
It also briefly presents the ESA Atomic Clock Ensemble in Space (ACES), a spaceflight project that aims to install at the International Space Station both a Cesium Fountain (PHARAO) supplied by CNES and an active Hydrogen MASER, supplied by a Spectratime, a Swiss company. Both clocks are combined within the so-called Frequency Comparison and Distribution Package (FCDP) and provided for Ground clock comparison with the Microwave Link (MWL). The MWL represents one of the most advanced TWTFT systems, allowing space-to-ground clock correlation.
With the future joint deployment of a PNT constellation around the Moon (NASA, ESA, JAXA), there might be a need to perform TWTFT between Moon-orbiting PNT satellites and Earth time.
Considering the above background, the following is recommended.
Expand the first paragraph of the subsection to 2.1.3 to include PRN-based and carrier-phase-based time and frequency transfer.
Mention TWTFT in both subsections 2.4.2 and 2.4.3 and possibly the remaining Mission Domains.
Expand sub-section 2.4.3 to include TWTFT, also in table 2-1.
Briefly describe on a dedicated paragraph the ESA ACES project in page 2-6, after the NASA/JPL Deep Space Atomic Clock.
Include the ESA and JAXA contributions to LuNet/Moonlight for what concerns the provision of PNT services in subsection 4.2.3.3
Furthermore, please correct a typo in the first paragraph, last sentence, of subsection 2.4.3. “Pointing" shall be replaced with “Positioning".
Total Respondents: 4
No response was received from the following Area(s):
SEA
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-2023-12-005 Approval to publish CCSDS 350.8-M-3, Information Security Glossary of Terms (Magenta Book, Issue 3)
Results of CESG poll beginning 29 December 2023 and ending 12 January 2024:
Abstain: 0 (0%)
Approve Unconditionally: 1 (25%) (Cola)
Approve with Conditions: 3 (75%) (Barkley, Aguilar Sanchez, Wilmot)
Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:
Erik Barkley (Approve with Conditions): I am curious as to why we (CCSDS) would not use this MB to establish a registry of security terms rather than defining them in a document. Perhaps the intention is that the CCSDS glossary will be the on-line repository of these terms? Seems that some sort of statement and./or treatment with respect to SANA is needed? At the very least to indicate that that this MB does not involve SANA. But probably the terms should be recorded in SANA and this should establish the authority/practice for updating the terms recorded in SANA?
Ignacio Aguilar Sanchez (Approve with Conditions): Just a consideration: references [4a] and [4b] point actually to two versions of the same document, the update from 2022 and the previous version from 2015. Why not considering only the version of 2022, i.e. reference [4b]?
Jonathan Wilmot (Approve with Conditions): 1) Should access control and ACL refer to the same term? AC uses “resource” and ACL uses “object” ACM uses “resource” again. The term “object” is not defined.
2) Is “accreditation” done by an “accreditation authority”, or just a “senior official”? It seems these terms should have a linkage.
3) An overall concern is that the different referenced sources of terms may not have a cohesive set of base terms used in their definitions. This could lead to confusion/ambiguities for the reader.
4) The referenced Glossary of Key Information Security Terms (ref 5) is a living online document that does change. Should this CCSDS document reference the date when the definitions were obtained?
Total Respondents: 4
No response was received from the following Area(s):
SEA
MOIMS
SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with Conditions
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate CMC poll after conditions have been addressed
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
More information about the CESG-All
mailing list